Your POV on the historical Jesus

[Sand Dancer]

The search for the historical Jesus is well known to be one of the most problematic issues in Religious Studies - it's really hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, can be safely asserted about the historical Jesus.

What are you guys' opinions?
Did he exist?
What was he like?
What did he do and say?

He may or may not have existed. He was a good teacher and spiritual role model. The Sermon on the Mount is positive, as is the two commandments he spoke of.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Gospels are presented as an article of faith - you can't easily dismiss them

Why can't I dismiss them by faith? How is that any less valid than accepting them by faith, or any other idea?

When I say you can't "easily" contradict the Gospels I meant that WHERE YOU CAN VERIFY CLAIMS THESE CLAIMS PAN OUT. ie There WAS a Jewish temple, a Casesar, a Pontius Pilot, a town called Nazareth (after a lot of searching) etc..

You didn't address my questions, and I won't ask them again, so I'll answer them myself. I can dismiss your claims by the same faith you mention is needed to accept the Gospels. If you can believe by faith, I can disbelieve by faith, and easily dismiss it all.

There's the beauty of faith. With faith, you can believe anything you like, or its polar opposite. Both positions are just as (un)sound, and at least one is wrong, but like I said, with faith, just believe what you like and ignore contradictory evidence if you have guessed wrongly.

 

[loverofhumanity]

At the time of Scripture writing, the overwhelming majority of people thought that Creation was a big, solid, lumpy plane, surrounded by water, with a blue dome over the top. And the sun revolved around it.
What "Most people believe..." isn't necessarily indicative of truth.
Tom

Yes but I don’t believe the majority got it wrong with Jesus. To me He conclusively established His Spiritual Sovereignty by the influence of His Words and teachings have had on humanity and the hearts and minds of men for over two thousand years.

Rays do not emanate from a non existent sun so likewise I believe that the effect His Revelation has had on humanity did not come from a non existent Person.

 

[columbus]

Rays do not emanate from a non existent sun so likewise I believe that the effect His Revelation has had on humanity did not come from a non existent Person.

I didn't suggest that Jesus was non existent. I'm confident that He did.

Whether what was later ascribed to Him accurately reflected His Ministry is a very different question.
Tom

 

[nPeace]

Gospel writers.. It was political because that's what human beings do.

Unfortunately, I don't think I am allowed to tell you whom evidently the fraud is... but it clearly is not any of the Gospel writers. In fact their writings are more credible and demonstrate more candor than anything you ever said here on RF...imo.

Just to demonstrate one example...
You say... "they had to invent walking on water", referring to whom? Frauds... whom you say are the Gospel writers.
Then you say this...
Historically, Mark is seen as one of Peter's disciples. The historian Papias in the 2nd Century refers to him as such. The historian Papias in the 2nd Century refers to him as such. Likewise, the evidence in the narrative, for example, indicates that Peter was a significant source for most of the material, and most theologians accept Mark as "Peter's" Gospel.

So if the evidence indicate Peter is the source of Mark's Gospel, that would make Peter the liar, wouldn't it?
Or, Mark took Peter's words, and created his own fanciful story by making mythical additions... but if this is true, then Papias was somehow in collusion with Mark (How on earth?), since Papias said Mark was a close associate of Peter, from whom he received the tradition of the things said and done by the Lord; ...this tradition did not come to Mark as a finished, sequential account of the life of our Lord, but as the preaching of Peter -- preaching directed to the needs of the early Christian communities; Mark accurately preserved this material.
It was Mark who actually recorded most of Jesus' spectacular miracles - including stilling the storm.

So according to you, we can't trust that Peter told the truth. We can't trust Mark. We can't believe Papias.
So we have a problem, because we most certainly can't trust you.
So whom do we trust?
I say don't listen to the modern day Satanic teachings - and that certainly won't be Peter, and Mark, and really early followers. (1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:14-17)
Timothy got some really good advice from Paul. I think it is wisdom on our part to pay attention to it, and accept it.
I'm really sorry you chose to be on the other side, but actually Jesus said, only few will have faith, be on the narrow road to life, and be saved, so that's the way it is.

 

[oldbadger]

Given the fact that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were all common names at the time, Jesus ben Joseph son of Mary doubtless existed. The only real question is how closely did any of them match the Legend(s) of Christ.
Tom

Jesus Ben Joseph?
Galileans spoke eastern Aramaic, not western.

Hence....... Yeshua BarYosef.

 

[columbus]

Jesus Ben Joseph?
Galileans spoke eastern Aramaic, not western.

Hence....... Yeshua BarYosef.

I figured some pedantic wannabe would take issue with modern English.
But I didn't think it would be you.

So yeah! Jesus couldn't possibly have existed, because Aramaic didn't have the "J" sound necessary to pronounce Jesus in English.

Happy now!?

Tom

 

[nPeace]

That's the spirit, just call all those theologians with all their studies 'fake news' so you don't have to think too deeply on the subject and can carry on as before.

I have a whole thread on the evidence that proves the Bible to be authentic, so your post apparently is "fake news", and busted.

 

[lukethethird]

As a Christian, I would hold that it was I that crucified Jesus because He hung on the cross for my sins.

Out of curiosity, what did you do that someone had to die for?

 

[oldbadger]

I figured some pedantic wannabe would take issue with modern English.
But I didn't think it would be you.

So yeah! Jesus couldn't possibly have existed, because Aramaic didn't have the "J" sound necessary to pronounce Jesus in English.

Happy now!?

Tom

Continuing my pedantic pursuits, the name Jesus is based upon a Greek or Roman name. Nobody who knew him ever called him Jesus.

The Southern Jews looked down on the Northerners and took the pee out of their lingo. Stuck up lot, them Hebrew speakin Jews.

 

[Marcion]

I have a whole thread on the evidence that proves the Bible to be authentic, so your post apparently is "fake news", and busted.

OK, the strength of your arguments and your positive stance have now convinced me that the gospels are historical accounts.

 

[columbus]

Continuing my pedantic pursuits, the name Jesus is based upon a Greek or Roman name. Nobody who knew him ever called him Jesus.

Continuing my comedic pursuits, when someone asks me "Do you know Jesus?", I can honestly say "Yes".
I may or may not add "My partner fired him from Line 2, third shift, because he kept coming in late and then spending half his time texting his girlfriend."

Tom

 

[oldbadger]

Continuing my comedic pursuits, when someone asks me "Do you know Jesus?", I can honestly say "Yes".
I may or may not add "My partner fired him from Line 2, third shift, because he kept coming in late and then spending half his time texting his girlfriend."

Tom

Love it!
I don't know a Jesus, but I have known loads and loads of Mahomeds and Muhamads.

 

[nPeace]

OK, the strength of your arguments and your positive stance have now convinced me that the gospels are historical accounts.

Oops. Sorry. That was not my intention. Should I take it back now?

 

[columbus]

Love it!
I don't know a Jesus, but I have known loads and loads of Mahomeds and Muhamads.

Ha ha!
Doug also fired Ceasar.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He may or may not have existed. He was a good teacher and spiritual role model.

I disagree.

(And that's even if we're talking about Jesus the character in the Gospels)

The Sermon on the Mount is positive, as is the two commandments he spoke of.

The Sermon on the Mount includes some profoundly negative stuff. Parts of it are fine, but I don't think it would be a stretch to call parts of it evil.

 

[Link]

Historians don't know half the stuff locked in vaults protected by secret societies, so they can quietly just stfu till they brave enough to demand people stop hiding **** from the masses and stop pretending they know what they talking about.

 

[Link]

Historians don't know half the stuff locked in vaults protected by secret societies, so they can quietly just stfu till they brave enough to demand people stop hiding **** from the masses and stop pretending they know what they talking about.

That's my view of history and historians, it's exactly like Pharoah telling Moses' what's the news of previous generations and everyone has their dependence on Pharaoh's government in that regard, and I will leave it at that.

This generation trusts way too blindly.

 

[columbus]

I disagree.

(And that's even if we're talking about Jesus the character in the Gospels)

Compared to ethics and morals of His time and place His teachings were excellent. Far more secular and objective than the norm.

Modern secular morality is definitely better, and Christians do have a tendency to revert to the self-serving, legalistic, judgementalism Jesus railed against, according to the story.

But still, props where props are due. Jesus opposed the ancient equivalent of "Prosperity Gospel". That's probably what got Him killed.
Tom

 

[columbus]

This generation trusts way too blindly.

"This generation"?
What makes you think that this generation trusts more blindly than the primitive folks who invented religion?
Tommy