Was there a Historical Jesus (grace, Egyptian, myth, church)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't ya think his brother James would have known?
I did not mean the Jews as a nation, but rather the apostle Jews. No Jew would ever think up a dying and resurrected Messiah. They still reject that to this day.
Post the link here or email me the link so I can find it.
Hope ya do.
Well, when I think of historical apostles, including the James of Josephus, I think of Jews, and the apostles of Paul are Jews. And even Acts shows James as being an observing Jew, and Peter too, and ..well, the whole portrait of Jesus the Jew has been repainted as Jesus the Christian.
The thing is that, while Pharisee Judaism entertained a last days bodily resurrection, I get from Paul that this wasn't what happened to Jesus. The opening of the tombs (Matthew aside) would happen when the messiah came to usher in the last days, and Paul indicates this as a spirit coming to inhabit a body and leaving (and this is reflected in the Gospels). I argued this out with Mike555 and there is still work to be done, but the hypothesis is that the Jewish Pharisee resurrection imagined by other Jews was other than the apostles' belief that Jesus had gone back to heaven.
The point is that common Jewish resurrection -belief in not a factor in my hypothesis of how the apostles came to believe (according to Paul) in a risen Jesus in heaven while the gospels and indeed Paul strongly suggest that there was no bodily resurrection and different ones had to be invented. Just as different nativities had to be invented to get Jesus born in Bethlehem,when he was a Galilean.
And I am tackling Ch.1 (Nativity) to try to get it fit to read. That is the test case, you might say for Gospel credibility. That is the pivot of 'historical Jesus, yes, Gospel Jesus, no'.
They might indeed be fictional people, at least as far as the Apostles are concerned. We have no contemporary confirmation that any of them existed, other than the NT. Because people have martyred themselves, though it does evidence their strong feelings for what they belief, it does not evidence their claims or the beliefs themselves. Many throughout history have martyred themselves for many reasons. Do you consider Jim Jones the reincarnation of Jesus since dozens committed suicide for him?
The claim that there is no confirmation that the apostles existed is simply not true and was addressed in post #31 of this thread.
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-28-2016 at 08:39 AM..
Well, when I think of historical apostles, including the James of Josephus, I think of Jews, and the apostles of Paul are Jews. And even Acts shows James as being an observing Jew, and Peter too, and ..well, the whole portrait of Jesus the Jew has been repainted as Jesus the Christian.
The thing is that, while Pharisee Judaism entertained a last days bodily resurrection, I get from Paul that this wasn't what happened to Jesus. The opening of the tombs (Matthew aside) would happen when the messiah came to usher in the last days, and Paul indicates this as a spirit coming to inhabit a body and leaving (and this is reflected in the Gospels). I argued this out with Mike555 and there is still work to be done, but the hypothesis is that the Jewish Pharisee resurrection imagined by other Jews was other than the apostles' belief that Jesus had gone back to heaven.
The point is that common Jewish resurrection -belief in not a factor in my hypothesis of how the apostles came to believe (according to Paul) in a risen Jesus in heaven while the gospels and indeed Paul strongly suggest that there was no bodily resurrection and different ones had to be invented. Just as different nativities had to be invented to get Jesus born in Bethlehem,when he was a Galilean.
And I am tackling Ch.1 (Nativity) to try to get it fit to read. That is the test case, you might say for Gospel credibility. That is the pivot of 'historical Jesus, yes, Gospel Jesus, no'.
One question Trans.
How are you going to approach the gospel Jesus to come to your conclusion?
The fundamental view of the gospel Jesus is not the only view of the gospel Jesus, thus if you use the fundamental idea ( what most Christians believe) to tackle the gospel Jesus question the only thing you might prove is the fundamental idea of the gospel Jesus is wrong.
Which a few of us on this forum already believe the fundamental view to be incorrect.
Anyway post the link to your study as I would be interested in looking at it.
You were the one who said that you believed that the disciples may have hallucinated that they saw the risen Jesus. It has been shown that the circumstances under which the disciples saw the risen Jesus doesn't allow for the hallucination hypothesis.
And the attempt to imply that Jesus and the apostles may not have existed fails to acknowledge that the apostolic church fathers were contemporaries of the apostles, and in some cases actually knew them.
Eusebius wrote that Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp said that Polycarp knew the apostle John and that he used to relate his discourses with John.
Ecclesiastical History, V. XX. (pp. 495-499)
In the letter to Florinus, wihch we have spoken of above, Irenaeus again mentions his intercourse with Polycarp, and says: 'These opinions, O Florinus, that I may speak sparingly, do not belong to sound doctrine. These opinions are inconsistent with the church, and bring those who believe in them into the greatest impiety. These opinions not even the heretics outside the church ever dared to proclaim. These opinions those who were presbyters before us, who accompanied the apostles, did not hand on to you. For while I was still a boy I knew you in lower Asia in Polycarp's house when you were a man of rank in the royal hall and endeavoring to stand well with him. I remember the events of those days more clearly than those which happened recently, for what we learn as children grows up with the soul and is united to it, so that I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the appearance of his body, the discourses which he made to people, how he reported his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures.
Irenaeus himself wrote that Polycarp was instructed by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ.
Against Heresies book 3, chapter 3, section 4
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.
Tertullian, wrote that it was recorded in church registers available in his time that Polycarp was placed by the apostle John in the church of Smyrna, and that Clement was ordained by Peter.
The Prescription Against Heretics, chapter XXXII.
But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.
The Gospels are historical records. The assertion that what the New Testament writers wrote can't be trusted unless secular writers back it up is simply not true and is nothing but an excuse used by skeptics to avoid having to address a legitimate historical record by those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus.
Historians wrote about what interested them. The simple fact of the matter is that Jesus wouldn't have invoked the interest of Roman writers during His day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
They might indeed be fictional people, at least as far as the Apostles are concerned. We have no contemporary confirmation that any of them existed, other than the NT. Because people have martyred themselves, though it does evidence their strong feelings for what they belief, it does not evidence their claims or the beliefs themselves. Many throughout history have martyred themselves for many reasons. Do you consider Jim Jones the reincarnation of Jesus since dozens committed suicide for him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The claim that there is no confirmation that the apostles existed is simply not true and was addressed in post #31 of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
You misquoted me a bit, but it was a critical bit. You omitted "contemporary" confirmation. Anything else is merely hearsay.
I'll give you two contemporary confirmations. Polycarp (A.D. 69-155), and Clement of Rome (died ca. A.D. 99) both lived during the time of the apostles, and both knew at least some of the apostles and mentioned them in their letters.
Polycarp,
THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP
Polycarp 9:1
I exhort you all therefore to be obedient unto the word of
righteousness and to practice all endurance, which also ye saw with
your own eyes in the blessed Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus, yea and
in others also who came from among yourselves, as well as in Paul
himself and the rest of the Apostles;
Polycarp 9:2
being persuaded that all these ran not in vain but in faith and
righteousness, and that they are in their due place in the presence
of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not the
present world, but Him that died for our sakes and was raised by
God for us. [Bolding mine]
1Clem 5:2
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.
1Clem 5:3 Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.
1Clem 5:4 There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.
1Clem 5:5 By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,
1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance. [Bolding mine]
By the way, historians do accept second hand accounts as opposed to contemporary accounts, although first hand accounts are preferred when they exist. If historians didn't accept non-contemporary accounts a lot of ancient history would have to be thrown out. Irenaeus's account of Polycarp knowing the apostle John is perfectly acceptable as evidence of the existence of John. Irenaeus knew Polycarp who knew the apostle John. Only someone with a hermeneutic of suspicion would disregard Irenaeus' testimony.
However, as seen, both Polycarp and Clement of Rome personally mention the apostles in their own letters which serves as contemporary evidence to the existence of the apostles. Clement wrote about Peter and Paul after their deaths which occurred sometime during the 60's, but according to Irenaeus, he had seen the apostles.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.3.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. [Bolding mine]
So Irenaeus states that Clement knew and had talked with the apostles, and Clement himself mentioned the apostles in his letter.
Of course, if you're one of those people who won't accept the evidence provided by the early church fathers because they're Christians, and demand contemporary secular attestation, then there's no point in bothering with you. You have the contemporary attestation of Polycarp and Clement of Rome, so take it or leave it.
I'll give you two contemporary confirmations. Polycarp (A.D. 69-155), and Clement of Rome (died ca. A.D. 99) both lived during the time of the apostles, and both knew at least some of the apostles and mentioned them in their letters.
Polycarp,
THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP
Polycarp 9:1
I exhort you all therefore to be obedient unto the word of
righteousness and to practice all endurance, which also ye saw with
your own eyes in the blessed Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus, yea and
in others also who came from among yourselves, as well as in Paul
himself and the rest of the Apostles;
Polycarp 9:2
being persuaded that all these ran not in vain but in faith and
righteousness, and that they are in their due place in the presence
of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not the
present world, but Him that died for our sakes and was raised by
God for us. [Bolding mine]
1Clem 5:2
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.
1Clem 5:3 Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.
1Clem 5:4 There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.
1Clem 5:5 By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,
1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance. [Bolding mine]
By the way, historians do accept second hand accounts as opposed to contemporary accounts, although first hand accounts are preferred when they exist. If historians didn't accept non-contemporary accounts a lot of ancient history would have to be thrown out. Irenaeus's account of Polycarp knowing the apostle John is perfectly acceptable as evidence of the existence of John. Irenaeus knew Polycarp who knew the apostle John. Only someone with a hermeneutic of suspicion would disregard Irenaeus' testimony.
However, as seen, both Polycarp and Clement of Rome personally mention the apostles in their own letters which serves as contemporary evidence to the existence of the apostles. Clement wrote about Peter and Paul after their deaths which occurred sometime during the 60's, but according to Irenaeus, he had seen the apostles.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.3.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. [Bolding mine]
So Irenaeus states that Clement knew and had talked with the apostles, and Clement himself mentioned the apostles in his letter.
Of course, if you're one of those people who won't accept the evidence provided by the early church fathers because they're Christians, and demand contemporary secular attestation, then there's no point in bothering with you. You have the contemporary attestation of Polycarp and Clement of Rome, so take it or leave it.
There is also Paul who said he had a visit with Peter and James the brother of the Lord.
How are you going to approach the gospel Jesus to come to your conclusion?
The fundamental view of the gospel Jesus is not the only view of the gospel Jesus, thus if you use the fundamental idea ( what most Christians believe) to tackle the gospel Jesus question the only thing you might prove is the fundamental idea of the gospel Jesus is wrong.
Which a few of us on this forum already believe the fundamental view to be incorrect.
Anyway post the link to your study as I would be interested in looking at it.
Sorry, still a bit busy.
The method (similar to redaction criticism) sorta evolved out of discussion. The gospels have contradictions (those who deny it can make no sensible contribution to the discussion) , but I saw early on the lists of discrepancies got nowhere. "Word of God" became "Word of God, mistakes of men". And I hardly need rehearse all the 'witnesses don't always agree' and 'wrote from different viewpoints' arguments, not to forget the 'believe other history books' point, which is why I approach the gospels just as any other event in more than one account (1).
You may not credit it, but I began by trying to make the gospels work together so I had a single coherent text to work with. Clearly some things were false for sure. Others demonstrably false on probability, other stuff generally agreed and some things supported by clues.
The nativity is the test case for demonstrably false on probability. It may seem that there are many explanations, but in fact none of them really work or even help. The two accounts contradict, totally. It requires Faith (2) to believe the Bethlehem claim without good evidence and in spite of the way the evidence points. Taking out what is not reliable leaves us what is, and I will say that every damn' thing Jesus is supposed to have said is not his words, but I was surprised at how much of what he did looks true.
You see where this leaves the historical Jesus. Scrape off the paint and you see the real picture underneath. You learn about the writers, too, what and how and thus why they wrote, and all this tells us about Paul and his relation to the Greek Christians who wrote the gospels and with the Jews (Christians or not) who didn't. And that leaves me with a reliable factual Jesus which shows that, while Tacitus looks ok, the FT absolutely is not, and that it is parenthetical and SOME of it even Christians agree Josephus couldn't have written, is simply confirmation of what I already know.
I might also mention the third most important Evidence, the death of Judas. The same contradictions, the same sort of Explanations to make them work together. But they are a test case in debunking prophecy. Compare them and check with the OT and the fraud becomes clear. That in itself doesn't debunk the story, but the previous examples of separate story writing and the irreconcilable elements and the fudged prophecies all combine with the familiar silence in Mark and John to debunk the dubious story.
And so it goes on, from the genuflecting foetus in Luke to was Thomas there or not, which by themselves may be explainable if only by rewriting the Bible, but with the fact of fabrication demonstrated to any reasonable person, all the rest follows.
but a lot more. Like I said before "This IS the big picture"
Had to reply over coffee and biscuits, but back to the Online office. *sigh*.
(1) the battle of Waterloo was a study I did at the same time, and had the same problems and the same result. Not all was certain, and motives might only be guessed at, but some things were known, others probable, some open to question and others sure. And the overall answer "What actually happened" is pretty reliable. No,the French did not win, neither there, nor at Quatre Bras though they did at Ligny,
(2) this is believing that Jesus was born in Bethlehem when all the evidence is against it (yep even the Egyptian tax enrollment papyrus) as a sort of special pleading. In a way you would never believe it of another religion or even history, if the evidence was against it that much. This is why debate with believers is so tricky, as they argue from an assumption that it's all true until totally disproven, and never mind the ones who still believe it a fact - not just probable, but reliable FACT, when it has been pretty much debunked.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-02-2016 at 07:54 AM..
Jesus as a focal point is better than harry potter, capt america, or a door knob. They are cartoon for no bajesus sakes. It may not work for everybody and thats fine too.
I prefer to "grab" onto "ideas" using Washington, Lincoln, Sherman, Grant, and lee. Butt hats just me. lee's the thumb by the way.
Ha! Amen--this looking to the Bible for facts and proof is ill advised, imo. It is what comes of insisting that [you] know the Way, and therefore anyone who disagrees with you is "lost."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
They might indeed be fictional people, at least as far as the Apostles are concerned. We have no contemporary confirmation that any of them existed, other than the NT. Because people have martyred themselves, though it does evidence their strong feelings for what they belief, it does not evidence their claims or the beliefs themselves. Many throughout history have martyred themselves for many reasons. Do you consider Jim Jones the reincarnation of Jesus since dozens committed suicide for him?
no, but neither do i see snuffing out Jim Jones producing many other Jims in its place. I mean, fast forward to Constantine, was he fictional too? And also, see that a choice for evil or good must be provided even in the Grace model, imo. "Proof" as we understand it, for either side, is anathema to this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
