Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 106 of 560 (468551)
05-30-2008 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by PaulK
05-28-2008 5:25 PM


Post-Resurrection Appearances in the Gospels
Mark 16
A "young man" is at the tomb and tells Mary, Mary and Salome that Jesus will be found in Galilee. They "tell nobody"
Matthew 28
An angel tells Mary and Mary that Jesus will be found in Galilee. They see Jesus who repeats the information. The disciples go to Galilee and see Jesus (who gives them the Great Comission).
Luke 24
Mary, Mary, Joanna and others meet two angels. The reference to Galilee is still present, but now refers to past events - not where Jesus will be. They go and tell the disciples.
Two of the disciples (one called Cleopas - a name appearing nowhere else in Luke, Acts or the other Gospels) are in Emmaus, near Jerusalem and meet Jesus. After they eventually recognise Jesus, he disappears. They go back to Jersualem and see Jesus, who commands them not to leave the city (before Pentecost). This is folllowed by the Ascension.
Acts 1:
The injunction not to leave Jerusalem is repeated, as is the Ascension. This account adds two angels who say that Jesus will return in the same way as he just left.
(Acts 2 includes Pentecost. There is no suggestion of a visit to Galilee, and the disciples are nethusiastically preaching from this point on. There are no more appearances listed until Acts 9, with Paul's conversion).
John 20-21
Mary goes to the tomb, doesn't meet any angels and brings Peter to see the empty tomb. Then she sees two angels in the tomb, and Jesus. She tells the disciples. Jesus appears twice to the disciples in Jerusalem.
Then (John 21) the disciples go to Galilee and see Jesus again.
If the Bible is as God wants us to have it, then we must conclude that God does not want us to know what really happened. The accounts are just too inconsistent to be relied on,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2008 5:25 PM PaulK has not replied

Force
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 560 (468736)
06-01-2008 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Grizz
04-06-2008 7:28 PM


Re: The Four Gospels
Grizz,
Grizz writes:
A few Gnostic communities even denied that the death and resurrection were actual historical facts. Most Gnostics did not tell the traditional story of the passion and resurrection - Jesus went away, after a while he reappeared to his followers, then mysteriously disappeared again. The number of Gnostic and Coptic manuscripts are quite numerous - these were not tiny, isolated sects.
I am searching for information that supports the popular idea that "Jesus Christ" was real. Do you know of any respected sources that were written down during the supposed life of Jesus Christ? Can you please reference your sources for the information above?

Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Grizz, posted 04-06-2008 7:28 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Brian, posted 06-01-2008 3:31 AM Force has not replied
 Message 110 by Grizz, posted 06-01-2008 11:49 AM Force has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 108 of 560 (468743)
06-01-2008 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Force
06-01-2008 2:42 AM


Re: The Four Gospels
Do you know of any respected sources that were written down during the supposed life of Jesus Christ?
There are none.
Outside of the Gospels, Jesus was invisible in history. Doesn't mean that He didn't exist of course, but it may cast doubts over His popularity, and over some of the Gospel events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Force, posted 06-01-2008 2:42 AM Force has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by IamJoseph, posted 06-02-2008 2:18 AM Brian has replied
 Message 124 by sophia777, posted 11-14-2010 4:52 PM Brian has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 109 of 560 (468759)
06-01-2008 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by GDR
05-29-2008 11:30 PM


HI GDR.
Thanks for participating. I am far from an expert on the subject and most of my knowledge has come through my own personal interest. This is not my area if speciality but I have always had an interest in Greco-Roman history and my interest in this particular subject was sparked by a summer field trip to Israel while an undergraduate at Notre Dame.
I also apologize to you and PaulK if my posts are a bit long-winded. Unfortunately, this subject just cannot be discussed without some mention of the historical details surrounding the period contemporary to Jesus. Too often these discussions focus entirely on the gospel manuscripts themselves. In the case of the evo-devo debate, most folks already have somewhat of an exposure to facts and information. With this subject, most simply are not aware of the information external to the gospel documents. It is absolutely impossible to really make an informed opinion without referencing this historical information and often it is ignored.
With that being said, it probably would be better if I stopped the lengthy posts and this thread started moving towards a more general discussion. My approach is probably not the most productive use of space. If there is something specific about the subject everyone is interested in, we can proceed from there. The Resurrection narratives seem to draw the main interest so if you both would like to focus on this we can have a go at it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by GDR, posted 05-29-2008 11:30 PM GDR has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 110 of 560 (468760)
06-01-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Force
06-01-2008 2:42 AM


Re: The Four Gospels
I am searching for information that supports the popular idea that "Jesus Christ" was real. Do you know of any respected sources that were written down during the supposed life of Jesus Christ? Can you please reference your sources for the information above?
Hi,
There are no literary sources contemporary to the life of Jesus. The earliest writings that contain any mention of the figure of Jesus come from Paul of Tarsus, roughly 20-30 years after the death of Jesus. As already mentioned, this was not a literate society and information was shared verbally.
If you want an overview of what was written and when you can consult, Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
Nearly all scholars hold the position that the stories are based on an actual historical figure. Those who question the historicity of Jesus present arguments that detail how the figure of Jesus could have been based on a complete fabrication. What they never do is present an argument showing how and why this inference should be considered more plausible than the inferences that have been reached by the majority of secular scholars. Possible does not mean probable; anything is possible. The historians of antiquity are presented with multitudes of possibilities and the goal is to consider each argument and then reach a consensus as to which inference is most plausible. There will always be the minority who argue against this consensus. The mythicist position is in the extreme minority among scholars. Of course, this is not a statement that the position is false, as we will never know with certainty what is true. History is not an empirical science and there are no experiments that can be performed to test the theory. The historian is after the most plausible inference.
There are many highly compelling reasons why the majority of historians have reached a consensus which concludes that it is highly plausible that the legends as presented in the early Christian literature were based on an actual historical figure. The compelling reasons are numerous; If you like, we can discuss some of these here. Also, perhaps someone can jump in and present a case for why the majority of secular scholars are wrong and why one should accept the mythicist inference as the more plausible conclusion that can be reached based on an understanding of the information at our disposal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Force, posted 06-01-2008 2:42 AM Force has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by IamJoseph, posted 06-02-2008 2:21 AM Grizz has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 111 of 560 (468877)
06-02-2008 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Brian
06-01-2008 3:31 AM


Re: The Four Gospels
quote:
Outside of the Gospels, Jesus was invisible in history.
What was not invisable were all those ridiculous, false charges of deicide, and millions slaughtered by it - all in the name of love. If there was a person named Jesus, no one's name and image has been more wrongly exploited in history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Brian, posted 06-01-2008 3:31 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Brian, posted 06-02-2008 5:06 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 112 of 560 (468878)
06-02-2008 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Grizz
06-01-2008 11:49 AM


Re: The Four Gospels
How do you account for the total vaccuum of any contemporary writings from any source, and why are the gospels not written in Hebrew?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Grizz, posted 06-01-2008 11:49 AM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Grizz, posted 06-02-2008 6:39 PM IamJoseph has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 113 of 560 (468886)
06-02-2008 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by IamJoseph
06-02-2008 2:18 AM


Re: The Four Gospels
I agree.
Christianity (not Jesus), has been an abomination on mankind.
In fact, both Islam and Christianity are going to end the world, all in the name of their invisible friend.
It is so sad that we sane athiests are going to be wiped out by mindless robots who take a bunch of Hebrew campfire tales are having some foundation in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by IamJoseph, posted 06-02-2008 2:18 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by IamJoseph, posted 06-02-2008 6:13 AM Brian has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 114 of 560 (468889)
06-02-2008 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Brian
06-02-2008 5:06 AM


Re: The Four Gospels
quote:
It is so sad that we sane athiests are going to be wiped out by mindless robots who take a bunch of Hebrew campfire tales are having some foundation in reality.
Hold yr horses. The campfire tales are strictly limited to the two offshoot robots. Athiest and Hebrews are the sane ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Brian, posted 06-02-2008 5:06 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Brian, posted 06-02-2008 8:05 AM IamJoseph has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 115 of 560 (468896)
06-02-2008 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by IamJoseph
06-02-2008 6:13 AM


Re: The Four Gospels
There are no Hebrews left bud.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by IamJoseph, posted 06-02-2008 6:13 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by IamJoseph, posted 06-02-2008 8:29 PM Brian has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 116 of 560 (468932)
06-02-2008 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by GDR
05-07-2008 11:49 PM


Re: Different view points
The same goes for Paul. There he was with position and presumably wealth in his community. All of a sudden he makes a 90 degree turn, in a way that in secular terms can only be described as an extremely poor career move. Once again, it seems sensible to believe his own account even if it does sound implausible.
This may be off topic a bit, so it may be best to start a new thread on Paul. However, I think it's not entirely necessary that Paul had position and power. From what I've read, he was a low level functionary who had no opportunity for upward mobility. It seems plausible to me that Paul was an ambitious man, and couldn't rise any higher in the Jewish community being from the proverbial sticks.
As for his "bad career move." He took a small Jewish sect, and saw an opportunity to become a high placed leader in that sect and affect it's evolution. And now, 2000 years later, we're still talking about him. I would consider that to be a very good career move.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by GDR, posted 05-07-2008 11:49 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by IamJoseph, posted 06-02-2008 8:19 PM Perdition has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 117 of 560 (468985)
06-02-2008 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by IamJoseph
06-02-2008 2:21 AM


Re: The Four Gospels
How do you account for the total vaccuum of any contemporary writings from any source,..
It is only a puzzle if you try to view Judea through the lens of the twentieth-century. The Roman Empire was largely a verbal society and information often traveled slowly. The majority of first century inhabitants were illiterate. Also, the well-educated aristocrats who were literate were not always proficient enough to compose documents with the same level of sophistication as we see with Jospehus, Tacitus, or Pliny.
This is how historians infer that Paul of Tarsus was a highly educated and Hellenized Jew. Not only does his philosophy give clues to his upbringing and education, his command of Greek and his penmanship indicate someone who is highly educated and likely comes from an affluent background.
Also, consider that in the first century you could not just run down to Drug Mart and purchase a pad of paper and a pen for a dollar. Not only were writing materials expensive, they were not easy to produce in quantity. The process of putting together papyrus scrolls or parchment from animal skins was time consuming and labor intensive. Most ancient manuscripts were written using the technique of Scriptio Continua: The author created the document using continuous script with no spacing between words or sentences. This saved precious material and money. This is also why scrolls were popular. Creating a codex with individual pages was a total pain in the rear.
Composing documents using the writing implements and material available at the time was also laborious and time consuming. Imagine having to pen just a few small paragraphs on hard parchment or papyrus where you often needed double or triple pen strokes.
In short, if you were going to devote your time and resources to putting something into writing, you had a very good reason to do so. During the life of Jesus, it is doubtful anyone saw anything of significance that would motivate them to devote any ink to what they would likely see as another self-proclaimed prophet who was among the hundreds of others walking the landscape of Judea. It wasn't unit the years following his death, when the stories and legends started circulating, that anyone would likely think it worthwhile to devote any ink to the subject.
That no public historian such as Josephus mentioned anything about Jesus during his life, or immediately after is death, is really not of much value when forming an opinion as to whether the figure of Jesus was historical. It means very little actually.
... and why are the gospels not written in Hebrew?
Hebrew was not a functional language at the time. The use of Hebrew declined following the destruction of Jersualem by the Babylonians. Most Jews found thesmelves dispersed and took on the language of the local society. In Palestine, the use of Hebrew was academic and it was employed for ritualistic purposes. This typically involved the recitation of the scriptures in the ancient tongue. Although many male Jews would have some familairity with the language, this was a very specialized task and typically done by the more learned -- Scribes or Priests. Hardly anyone would have enough of a grasp of the Hebrew language to make functional use ot it.
The majority language of the Empire was Greek, with a large portion of the western Empire speaking Latin. Aramaic was the dominant language for the inhabitants of first-century Palestine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by IamJoseph, posted 06-02-2008 2:21 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by IamJoseph, posted 06-02-2008 7:58 PM Grizz has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 118 of 560 (469004)
06-02-2008 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Grizz
06-02-2008 6:39 PM


Re: The Four Gospels
Yes, I agree with much you said. Writings was not commonplace for most of Europe and Arabia [in fact, Europeans were forbidden from owning a NT till 800 years later, and got their beliefs via fiery priests only]; Jews being an anomoly where they wrote copiously since many centuries before Rome emerged. Also, I agree Hebrew was forbidden generally by Rome, as was any teachings of the OT. One must consider that only 2000 years ago, today's most modern Briton was a barbaric, pagan people, entrenched in worshipping the entrails of humans - as recorded in Roman archives, when it razed Londoninium by fire and massacred 80,000 Pic-celts in 55 CE - then went on to genocide 1.1 million Jews in Judea. The charge of heresy was fastidious by Rome.
Yet I find it suspicious that there are no contemporary writings of the Gospels from any other source [The passage in Josephus of Jesus being an accepted forgery today, even by christian scholars]. I find it suspicious any Jewish revered one would not have secretly made a Hebrew document: Jewish writings are, IMHO, the most honest writ in existance, never candy-coated and freely admitting its failings - a unique feature seen in the OT & Prophetic writings, among all scriptures.
The only thing about the gospels which appears credible is that there are 4 seperate gospel writers, which is very difficult to question as not having some authenticity - a feature not generally acknowledged. Here, any variances in these writings do not question its veracity, but in fact makes them more credible and naturally occuring: it would be more suspicious if they were all in perfect allignment. I find it difficult to accept that even if the gospels was claimed as fixed later on - why not fix the discrepencies!?
Then again, I am suspicious of European writings: the Protocols was so engeniously produced, it was believed for many centuries and is still regarded as sacred history in the Islamic world; the blood libels was held as sacred writ for many centuries too - these falsehoods took 100s of 1000s of innocent lives, and continued many centuries as holy writs. My conclusion: there is still a dire and desperate need for an actual proof of the Gospels, and the current status quo is deficient to an extent of ubsurdity.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Grizz, posted 06-02-2008 6:39 PM Grizz has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 119 of 560 (469006)
06-02-2008 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Perdition
06-02-2008 1:43 PM


Re: Different view points
Paul was a relative of the Jewish-Roman Queen Bernice, grand daughter of Herod, daughter of his son Agriipa: a powerful figure, richer than nero, and one notorious for her sexual exploits and incestous relations with her brother Agriipa, Vespasian and his son Titus. Bernice had Paul freed when Rome held him 2 years in Ceasera on the charge of heresy, claiming him a Roman citizen and thus he must be tried in Rome. Later on, he was killed in Rome as a Nasserite Jew, along with 2,500 other Jews.
Paul was also a prominent member of the Parlaiment in Athens, married to a greek non-jew, and his family a 3 generation secularised, non-observing Jewish Greek. Paul was expelled by the Nasserite jewish group on claims of blasphemy - he later succeeded in impressing the Greeks and then the Europeans in general, by giving them what they wanted to hear. Had Paul not flaunted the OT laws - he would have failed, and christianity would not have succeeded.
Paul was a mish mash, an epileptical figure, who did a slash, cut and snip of the OT laws - negating whatever did not fit the Gospels, keeping what did not interfear with it. Paul could not take away from Europe the rites of image worship, gay, diet and a host of other OT laws. This makes christianity a zionist plot, and made of deviant Jews!
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Perdition, posted 06-02-2008 1:43 PM Perdition has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 120 of 560 (469007)
06-02-2008 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Brian
06-02-2008 8:05 AM


Re: The Four Gospels
Check the dots again. What if your 101% wrong - does the earth become flat?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Brian, posted 06-02-2008 8:05 AM Brian has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024