Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-13-2024, 08:16 AM
 
7,346 posts, read 4,134,790 times
Reputation: 16810

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
I don't believe sources are required for all this. Jesus having siblings, not that big a deal. Jesus being a stone mason, who cares? Its not really the point of this topic. Yet if someone finds info for me from the historical view that goes against what I've laid out, I would accept that. Its also not that big a deal for me to be wrong. If most scholars disagree Jesus had siblings or came from a middle class family, I don't have a problem with that.
Truth matters. Separating truth from speculation matters.

You are playing mind games like Bart Ehrman.

In your discussion. I found Bart Ehrman. In one article on his blog is "How much of the Gospel stories about them are historically reliable?" First, it disputes Mary was a virgin or visited by Angel Gabriel and "disproves" that Jesus was born in Bethlehem or wen to Egypt.

Quote:
Unfortunately, we have even less information about Joseph. In Matthew, we are told that Jesus was called “the son of the carpenter.” The Greek word translated as carpenter is tekton. John Dominic Crossan writes that while we think of a carpenter as a highly-skilled and trained professional, the word in ancient Greek is more similar to “day-laborer.” This marks Joseph as poor and coming from a poor family. It has been noted that Joseph is not mentioned in the Gospels after the story about Jesus being forgotten at the Temple in Luke 2:41-52. Later interpreters would assume from this that Joseph had died when Jesus was very young, which is certainly plausible.
https://www.bartehrman.com/mary-and-...in%20his%2020s.

Be very careful about people who claim special knowledge of accept Church history and attempts to rewrite it.

Last edited by YorktownGal; 02-13-2024 at 08:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-13-2024, 08:38 AM
 
2,417 posts, read 1,448,686 times
Reputation: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz View Post
Basically, entire OP has wrong title.
It should be "What can we learn from the "Gospel Jesus", not "historical" Jesus. Read #86. Circular reasoning again. It is true because it is so said in the Gospels. That Gospels are work of humans, is not even considered. Because, it is said in the Gospels. Absolute 200% solid historical proof.
Thereafter, there is no need to continue, as all t-s are crossed.
And, if you change it to "historical", you have no merit, as there is no proof of that particular divine figure ever existing. Even finding a tomb with "Yeshua was buried here" means nothing, as Yeshua was a popular name, so was Marrah, or Marriah, transliteration of Sarrah, there and then.

Perhaps for some who are not believers like to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because some reject the claims of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels, they then throw the Gospels out as entire works of fiction. That means Pilate didn't exist, it means Caiaphas didn't exist, and while we're at it lets just say Israel itself didn't exist because that is also in the Gospels.


Stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater my friends. Many of the things in the Gospels (not a few) have been proven to be historically accurate. The likelihood of Jesus' existence is pretty much settled among scholarship. There's good evidence to say Mark's Gospel used an Aramaic written source. I've already stated Aramaic was the common language of Jesus' day. So if there were written Aramaic "Gospels" before the widely copied Gospel of Mark, those Aramaic sources could have been by Jesus' disciples or more first hand accounts. This shows us a link, because we also know Matthew and Luke's Gospel used Mark as a source, whereas John's Gospel came from another line of tradition.


Now all that said, anyone interested in what I just typed, I encourage you to look into it for yourselves. Don't ask me for sources. What, you can't just take the word of your good pal Heavenese on good faith? Yet even in Mark's Gospel, you can see he left some of Jesus' words in Aramaic. This is good evidence for the Aramaic written source hypothesis. By the way, this is something we can learn from the Historical Jesus. He most likely could speak three languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and some Greek) Most of us today can only speak one language, yet we crap on people who lived thousands of years ago as if we are smarter than them. Jesus was a polyglot!


Quote:
Originally Posted by YorktownGal View Post
Truth matters. Separating truth from speculation matters.

You are playing mind games.

No, I'm not playing mind games. Again this topic is not even about setting doctrine concerning the beliefs of who Jesus is. This is solely about what we can learn from Jesus from the historical view of His life. In the historical view, He preached a message (likely). He had disciples (likely). He existed (likely) It is also likely His message was similar to what it is said John preached, concerning repentance and the coming of the Kingdom of God/Heaven. So there are things we can pull from this teachings and what Jesus likely could have preached. We can pull what Jesus Himself did from His own teachings. So concerning family according to the Gospels, Jesus called for His disciples to concern themselves about the things of the Kingdom. He also taught this would cause divisions in families. Well, we can clearly see in His own family there was contention. He didn't even call His own mother "mother", but according to the Gospels He addressed her as "woman". (Of course when it comes to this, it could be a biased point from the Gospels, not wanting Jesus to be subject to anyone, even His parents. Yet given the tension we see with His family, and the things Jesus likely preached, Him calling Mary "woman" would fall in line with the attitude of His teachings.)


So this is what I'm pulling from the Historical Jesus point of view. I find it very dynamic and interesting. I'm sad to see others don't find it the same. There are a few other things I would like to discuss along these lines, but many would rather discuss if Jesus even existed, which is not necessarily the point of this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2024, 08:53 AM
 
2,417 posts, read 1,448,686 times
Reputation: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by YorktownGal View Post
Exactly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpet...nt_Reformation

Again, in an age before surnames and no word for "cousins," you can not read the Bible as a source of Jesus' family ties. We don't know about Joseph life before his marriage to Mary. Did Joseph have children before Jesus? While I doubt it, Jesus was then never the oldest child.

I really what what Heavenese is trying to do, but there is no historical basis birth, baptism or death certificates for Jesus. There are no government documents for birth and death of Joseph, Mary or St. John the Baptism either. It's truly a matter of faith.

To this aspect, the Gospels knew the difference between cousins and siblings. Even Luke mentions Elizabeth as a "relative" of Mary, the Greek word συγγενής (suggenes). This is not used when speaking to Jesus brothers and sisters. The Greek word ἀδελφός (adelphos). Given the context, this would be referring to Jesus' actual siblings. In Luke 8:19 it states..........



Then Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him, but they were unable to reach Him because of the crowd..............



So in this context, it would not make sense to say these "brothers" are Jesus disciples. If it were the case these "brothers" were just disciples or even fellow Israelites, why would Luke not identify Mary as a "sister"? No. The context is actual mother, and actual brothers (siblings). They are immediate family as it relates to Mary, the mother.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2024, 09:22 AM
 
Location: NMB, SC
43,096 posts, read 18,269,535 times
Reputation: 34973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post

Stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater my friends. Many of the things in the Gospels (not a few) have been proven to be historically accurate. The likelihood of Jesus' existence is pretty much settled among scholarship. There's good evidence to say Mark's Gospel used an Aramaic written source. I've already stated Aramaic was the common language of Jesus' day. So if there were written Aramaic "Gospels" before the widely copied Gospel of Mark, those Aramaic sources could have been by Jesus' disciples or more first hand accounts. This shows us a link, because we also know Matthew and Luke's Gospel used Mark as a source, whereas John's Gospel came from another line of tradition.
.
I've found the same info as above in my readings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2024, 10:04 AM
 
Location: West Virginia
16,673 posts, read 15,672,301 times
Reputation: 10924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
In terms of evidence, scholars pull from the Gospels themselves, even from the historical point of view. The Gospels said Jesus had siblings. So when it comes to Jesus being a stone mason, this comes down to likelihood given the work that would have been available in the region where He grew up. The Gospels use the Greek word "tektón", from where we get our word architect from. It's meaning is "builder", "craftsmen", and "artisan". So in most English translations of the Bible it is translated as "carpenter". Again given where Jesus grew up, there was a lot of construction around the region, most likely Jesus was skilled in this area. To be solely a woodworker in Nazareth would limit His opportunity to make money.

When dealing in likelihoods, Jesus probably was a stone mason, but could have been skilled in all areas of that caliber job. That's really all I have. In terms of sources, I'll just leave it for everyone to look into for themselves if it interests them that much. It's not like I'm discussing the unifying theory between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics here. I'm not even discussing Jesus being the actual Messiah and Son of God. I don't believe sources are required for all this. Jesus having siblings, not that big a deal. Jesus being a stone mason, who cares? Its not really the point of this topic. Yet if someone finds info for me from the historical view that goes against what I've laid out, I would accept that. Its also not that big a deal for me to be wrong. If most scholars disagree Jesus had siblings or came from a middle class family, I don't have a problem with that.

Sounds like you made it up. I didn't think you could find even one source that says Jesus was a stone mason.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: https://www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2024, 10:19 AM
 
Location: West Virginia
16,673 posts, read 15,672,301 times
Reputation: 10924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
Perhaps for some who are not believers like to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because some reject the claims of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels, they then throw the Gospels out as entire works of fiction. That means Pilate didn't exist, it means Caiaphas didn't exist, and while we're at it lets just say Israel itself didn't exist because that is also in the Gospels.
You've done it again. And, you're wrong again. Because somebody thinks that one point or another from one of the Gospels may not be 100% accurate does NOT mean that the entirety of the Gospels is rejected. For example, many scholars think that the last few verses of Mark were added later. Rejecting that [strange] passage does not mean that the book of Matthew is garbage.


Quote:
Stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater my friends. Many of the things in the Gospels (not a few) have been proven to be historically accurate. The likelihood of Jesus' existence is pretty much settled among scholarship. There's good evidence to say Mark's Gospel used an Aramaic written source. I've already stated Aramaic was the common language of Jesus' day. So if there were written Aramaic "Gospels" before the widely copied Gospel of Mark, those Aramaic sources could have been by Jesus' disciples or more first hand accounts. This shows us a link, because we also know Matthew and Luke's Gospel used Mark as a source, whereas John's Gospel came from another line of tradition.
Some things in the Gospels are known to be true in the sense that place names are confirmed. If you know some of the events are confirmed to have taken place, please post your sources. I'm curious how an event was confirmed.

Quote:
Now all that said, anyone interested in what I just typed, I encourage you to look into it for yourselves. Don't ask me for sources. What, you can't just take the word of your good pal Heavenese on good faith? Yet even in Mark's Gospel, you can see he left some of Jesus' words in Aramaic. This is good evidence for the Aramaic written source hypothesis. By the way, this is something we can learn from the Historical Jesus. He most likely could speak three languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and some Greek) Most of us today can only speak one language, yet we crap on people who lived thousands of years ago as if we are smarter than them. Jesus was a polyglot!
No, that's not how discussion forums work. If you expect too be taken seriously, post your sources. So far, it looks like you make stuff up, post it and then ignore comments.

You say you want others to see what you see, but you offer nothing to facilitate that.

<<snip>>
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: https://www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2024, 10:43 AM
 
2,417 posts, read 1,448,686 times
Reputation: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
You've done it again. And, you're wrong again. Because somebody thinks that one point or another from one of the Gospels may not be 100% accurate does NOT mean that the entirety of the Gospels is rejected. For example, many scholars think that the last few verses of Mark were added later. Rejecting that [strange] passage does not mean that the book of Matthew is garbage.




Some things in the Gospels are known to be true in the sense that place names are confirmed. If you know some of the events are confirmed to have taken place, please post your sources. I'm curious how an event was confirmed.



No, that's not how discussion forums work. If you expect too be taken seriously, post your sources. So far, it looks like you make stuff up, post it and then ignore comments.

You say you want others to see what you see, but you offer nothing to facilitate that.

<<snip>>

Of course there are many earlier comments speaking to the Gospels and NT as not being reliable, but demanding outside sources. (Pertaining mainly to Jesus' existence) For them, sources won't matter because they too will glean from the Gospels and any historical facts about the region during the time.


The things I mentioned concerning the Historical Jesus are from things I've heard down the years. I have no direct sources, but a basic google search will lead to the information and debates about these things. If I made everything up, nothing would show in a basic google search. So I leave that for everyone if they are interested. If they are not interested to do that, they certainly won't be interested in reading any in depth source I would post. In my opinion, its not worth the time. Its also not what I intended for this topic.


In my OP I laid out a map for discussion. Yet the intent has not been received as I planned. With my next post some time later, I will go deeper to flush out what I want to dsicuss.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2024, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Virginia
10,093 posts, read 6,433,756 times
Reputation: 27660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
In terms of evidence, scholars pull from the Gospels themselves, even from the historical point of view. The Gospels said Jesus had siblings. So when it comes to Jesus being a stone mason, this comes down to likelihood given the work that would have been available in the region where He grew up. The Gospels use the Greek word "tektón", from where we get our word architect from. It's meaning is "builder", "craftsmen", and "artisan". So in most English translations of the Bible it is translated as "carpenter". Again given where Jesus grew up, there was a lot of construction around the region, most likely Jesus was skilled in this area. To be solely a woodworker in Nazareth would limit His opportunity to make money.

When dealing in likelihoods, Jesus probably was a stone mason, but could have been skilled in all areas of that caliber job. That's really all I have. In terms of sources, I'll just leave it for everyone to look into for themselves if it interests them that much. It's not like I'm discussing the unifying theory between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics here. I'm not even discussing Jesus being the actual Messiah and Son of God. I don't believe sources are required for all this. Jesus having siblings, not that big a deal. Jesus being a stone mason, who cares? Its not really the point of this topic. Yet if someone finds info for me from the historical view that goes against what I've laid out, I would accept that. Its also not that big a deal for me to be wrong. If most scholars disagree Jesus had siblings or came from a middle class family, I don't have a problem with that.
However, one can't use the Gospels as evidence since that is circular reasoning. You're using the result as the source, which doesn't provide "proof" of anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2024, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Germany
16,779 posts, read 4,982,520 times
Reputation: 2113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
Perhaps for some who are not believers like to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because some reject the claims of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels, they then throw the Gospels out as entire works of fiction. That means Pilate didn't exist, it means Caiaphas didn't exist, and while we're at it lets just say Israel itself didn't exist because that is also in the Gospels.
Wrong, the gospels could still be complete fiction while mentioning historical people and places.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
Stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater my friends. Many of the things in the Gospels (not a few) have been proven to be historically accurate.
Napoleon existing and capturing Moscow does not make War and Peace true, nor does it mean Pierre existed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
The likelihood of Jesus' existence is pretty much settled among scholarship.
Yet there are too many relevant historians who say they reason to doubt. We can ignore the apologists who ignore evidence they do not like, and use bad methods not used in other fields of history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
There's good evidence to say Mark's Gospel used an Aramaic written source.
There is great evidence that Mark was invented by a Greek speaking, well educated person, using sources such as Homer and the OT. That it sometimes used Aramaic does not mean there was an Aramaic source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
I've already stated Aramaic was the common language of Jesus' day. So if there were written Aramaic "Gospels" before the widely copied Gospel of Mark, those Aramaic sources could have been by Jesus' disciples or more first hand accounts.
As my ancestors once said, "If".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
This shows us a link, because we also know Matthew and Luke's Gospel used Mark as a source, whereas John's Gospel came from another line of tradition.
But if Matthew and Luke are not independent (and they are not), and we know early Christians invented gospels (we have over 40 of them), then that increases the chances our gospels are also invented. Also, John certainly knew Luke, his Lazarus story was invented to correct Luke's.

And considering John was still being updated around 200 AD (Tertullian said his version ended with chapter 20), and Luke using Josephus, that still means the gospels are late.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2024, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Germany
16,779 posts, read 4,982,520 times
Reputation: 2113
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
Sounds like you made it up. I didn't think you could find even one source that says Jesus was a stone mason.
Tekton could mean Stonemason, he is not inventing that part. The author of Mark could also have been using it as an allegory for Jesus being the creator of the everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top