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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-11-2024, 06:00 AM
 
Location: NJ
2,676 posts, read 1,267,906 times
Reputation: 1290

Advertisements

So we might as well be asking about the "historical" Harry Potter. Real name, real historical and geographical references, not first hand account...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-11-2024, 07:43 AM
 
Location: NMB, SC
43,150 posts, read 18,306,779 times
Reputation: 35027
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends View Post
So we might as well be asking about the "historical" Harry Potter. Real name, real historical and geographical references, not first hand account...
You don't think his mention by Josephus and Tacitus in their writings count ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 09:42 AM
 
7,367 posts, read 4,149,677 times
Reputation: 16835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post

- It is generally accepted Jesus was from Nazareth.
-accepted Jesus had a large family
- accepted Jesus was baptized by John. (May have been a disciple)
- accepted Jesus had His own disciples and taught
- accepted Jesus was crucified
- accepted Jesus' disciples preached He rose again

Jesus came from a relatively poor family.

Being the oldest of His brothers and sisters, a lot would be expected on Him to carry the family name. It is generally believed the oldest son would take on the occupation of their fathers. In the case of Jesus, that occupation was craftsmanship. A lot of English translations of the New Testament state Joseph was a "carpenter". Yet the most accurate translation of the Greek word "tektōn" is artisan or craftsman, and is the basis for where we get our word 'architect" from.

Jesus following in the family business would have been considered a builder. No doubt He would have dealt with some woodworking, but it's most likely He worked with stone and stone masonry.

He likely traveled with Joseph to different areas constructing buildings and other structures. This is what He did for most of His life. While working with His father Joseph, they may have had long discussions concerning Scripture and the Roman occupation. You can only imagine the bond Jesus had with Joseph. At some point, Joseph passes away, leaving the full responsibility of the family in Jesus' hands.

A lot was on Jesus' plate at this point in His life. It was around this time a cousin of His, John, began preaching in the wilderness. John proclaimed the people of Israel should repent, "For the kingdom of heaven has come near!" It was an apocalyptic message.

Now again, this is what critical scholars agree on concerning Jesus' life. They believe Jesus took this message to heart, and began to commit His life toward ushering in God's kingdom. He was baptized by John, and from that moment on He left His occupation of working on and crafting stone, and began working crafting the people. He left His family behind and gave His full attention to God's kingdom.

This is one of the most interesting details for me concerning Jesus. How He left everything behind in pursuit of this goal. Naturally looking at this, the world would condemn Jesus for doing such a thing, abandoning His family like that. Even more so given the culture of the oldest son having the responsibility of taking care of the family in the absence of the father. (And again, they were a poor family).

There was one instance where Mary and some of Jesus' brothers came to take Him back home, because there were those in His family who believed He wasn't in His right mind. Someone told Jesus His family was seeking Him, and He outwardly told the crowd around Him saying, "Who are My mother and My brothers?" Then looking around He pointed to them stating it was they, those who do the will of God, were His brothers, sisters, and mother.

I believe you would be a complete liar if you said that wasn't disrespectful toward His family. Jesus' actions go against our common and survival senses. Saying it was disrespectful would be putting it lightly. In the world, your family is supposed to be the ones who care about you the most. Of course I know that's not the case every time. Yet that is how things are supposed to be. At the very least, your mother cares for you. So goes the phrase of 'having the face only a mother could love'. However Jesus states those who do the will of God, they are His mother. So He refused to meet His family.
I've cut the OP in half because there is only so much crazy I can handle at one time.

1. accepted Jesus had a large family. Jesus was an only child. "Brothers" was a term used in ancient times to stress familial/kinship ties, not literally brothers. In 2024, we've replaced the phase "brothers" with cousins.

2. Jesus came from a relatively poor family

How did you come up with this? If Joseph was a carpenter and a craftsman, he would have been middle class. He would have needed money to set up a shop and a home in Egypt and to return again to Nazareth. To accomplish these moves proves Joseph was not poor.

3. Being the oldest of His brothers and sisters, a lot would be expected on Him to carry the family name.

Quote:
At the beginning of the Biblical period, Jews, like all members of ancient societies, had no surnames of any kind. Men were known simply as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and so forth. But as the patriarchal families swelled into tribes, more definite identifications were deemed necessary, and patronymics began to be used: a man was designated as X ben (son of) Y. Thus we find: Joshua ben Nun, Caleb ben Yefuneh, Palti ben Raphu, and so on. The patronymic is the form of many surnames extant today, both among Jews and non-Jews: Jameson, Johnson, Jackson, Abramson, Mendelson.

In the later period covered by the books of Judges and Kings we find places of origin being employed to identify individuals more closely: Doeg the Edomite, Uriah the Hittite, Elijah the Tishbite, etc., etc. At the time of the return from Babylon under Ezra we come upon several descriptive and adjectival personal names with a definite article. These, to be sure, occur only rarely, but they supply interesting examples of personal names that at the same time serve very nearly as surnames: Ha-kotz (the thorn) in Ezra 2:61; Ha-katan (the little one) in Ezra 8:12; Ha-lohesh (the enchanter) in Nehemiah 3:12. This form probably constitutes the transition to the more definite types of surnames which make their appearance in the Talmudic period.
https://www.commentary.org/articles/...d%20so%20forth.

Even in Christian Medieval history,

Quote:
Surnames weren’t widely used until after the Norman Conquest in 1066. As the country’s population grew, it became necessary to distinguish between people and so names began to include descriptions of the person, such as Thomas son of John, Peter the Baker, Richard the Whitehead, Mary Webster, etc. These descriptions would grow to form the surnames we recognise today.

To begin with, surnames were fluid and changed over time, or as a person changed his job. For example, John Blacksmith might become John Farrier as his trade developed.
https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Surnames/

So forget about carrying on a family name. Jesus only had to support his mother - there were no brothers/sisters to support.

4. Jesus following in the family business would have been considered a builder.

This is fanciful. All we know is Jesus was a carpenter. We don't know if he built wooden structure or bookcases and tables. We just don't know. If Jesus was a stone mason, then he wouldn't be a carpenter.

5. They believe Jesus took this message to heart, and began to commit His life toward ushering in God's kingdom

You have it backwards. John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus . . . . because John already knew Jesus' role.

Quote:
Matthew 3: John the Baptist Prepares the Way

3 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” 3 This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:

“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”
If Jesus took John's message to heart, you are referring Jesus didn't know the time and place of His mission. John preparing the ground for Jesus is far different from Jesus changing his course of action from John's speech.

5. How He left everything behind in pursuit of this goal. Naturally looking at this, the world would condemn Jesus for doing such a thing, abandoning His family like that. Even more so given the culture of the oldest son having the responsibility of taking care of the family in the absence of the father. (And again, they were a poor family)

Jesus never abandoned his mother. There were no other family members and they weren't poor.

6. There was one instance where Mary and some of Jesus' brothers came to take Him back home, because there were those in His family who believed He wasn't in His right mind

Probably the most repugnant fanciful statement.

Mary knew:

Quote:
Luke 1 The annunciation of the birth of Jesus

26 In the sixth month, Gabriel (the angel) was sent from God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man called Joseph, from the family of David. The virgin was called Mary.

28 “Greetings, favored one!” said the angel when he arrived. “May the Lord be with you!”

29 She was disturbed at this, and wondered what such a greeting might mean.

30 “Don’t be afraid, Mary,” said the angel to her. “You’re in favor with God. 31 Listen: you will conceive in your womb and will have a son; and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be a great man, and he’ll be called the son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, 33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever. His kingdom will never come to an end.”

34 “How will this happen?” said Mary to the angel. “I’m still a virgin!”

35 “The holy spirit will come upon you,” replied the angel, “and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason the holy one who is born from you will be called God’s Son.
Yeah, kind of a spoiler as to what was coming next.

Joseph knew:

Quote:
Matthew 1:20-25

An angel from the Lord appeared to him and said, “Joseph, descendant of David, don't hesitate to take Mary into your home as your wife, because the power of the Holy Spirit has conceived a child in her womb.
Mary & Joseph knew:

Quote:
Luke 2:

16 So they hurried off, and found Mary and Joseph, and the child lying in the feeding-trough. 17 When they saw it, they told them what had been said to them about this child. 18 And all the people who heard it were amazed at the things the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured all these things and mused over them in her heart.
There was the visit of the Magi

Quote:
Luke 2

33 His father and mother were astonished at the things that were said about him. 34 Simeon blessed them.

“Listen,” he said to Mary his mother, “this child has been placed here to make many in Israel fall and rise again, and as a sign that will be spoken against 35 (yes, a sword will go through your own soul as well), so that the thoughts of many hearts may be disclosed.”

There was also a prophetess called Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, having been widowed after a seven-year marriage, 37 and was now eighty-four. She never left the Temple, but worshiped with fasting and prayer night and day. 38 She came up at that moment and gave thanks to God, and spoke about Jesus to everyone who was waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.
By the time Jesus was 40 days old, Mary knew he wasn't going to have a "normal" life. Joseph was told by Angels to move to Egypt. Jesus was found at the Temple preaching at age 12. Mary asked Jesus turned the water into wine.

I get you want to look at Jesus was a historical figure with 20/21st century thoughts. You haven't done it. You'll just made stuff up. You need links to historical facts to prove your points.

Last edited by YorktownGal; 02-11-2024 at 09:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 10:00 AM
 
Location: NJ
2,676 posts, read 1,267,906 times
Reputation: 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
You don't think his mention by Josephus and Tacitus in their writings count ?
one would first have to ignore claims that the mentions are not authentic or driven by first hand knowledge. Then one could look up references to Harry Potter by all sorts of people now, including historians. Then one should wait a few hundred years and see what happens. Remember, Jedi is now an accepted religion in some places. Does that make Luke Skywalker a real person?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Germany
16,798 posts, read 4,996,217 times
Reputation: 2121
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
You don't think his mention by Josephus and Tacitus in their writings count ?
The early Christians looking in Josephus and Tacitus for a mention of Jesus did not find any in these accounts until after 300 AD for Josephus and even later for Tacitus, so they probably did not exist until they were added later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 10:27 AM
 
19,057 posts, read 27,627,799 times
Reputation: 20283
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends View Post
one would first have to ignore claims that the mentions are not authentic or driven by first hand knowledge. Then one could look up references to Harry Potter by all sorts of people now, including historians. Then one should wait a few hundred years and see what happens. Remember, Jedi is now an accepted religion in some places. Does that make Luke Skywalker a real person?
Exactly. And, do not forget that, Pualanian Christianity became mainstream 300 years after and everyone knows, it's Paulanian doctrine.

But anyhow.

Outside of Flavius and Tacitus there is a much more reliable source. Jews themselves. In Talmud, there is mentioning of five, then times, known Yeshuas. As his name was Yeshua, not Jesus. One of them, most matching, was a "magician, attracting large crowds, and executed".
Talmud is VERY precise on historical events.

Scholars have identified the following references in the Talmud that some conclude refer to Jesus:[86]

Jesus as a sorcerer with disciples (b Sanh 43a–b)
Healing in the name of Jesus (Hul 2:22f; AZ 2:22/12; y Shab 124:4/13; QohR 1:8; b AZ 27b)
As a Torah teacher (b AZ 17a; Hul 2:24; QohR 1:8)
As a son or disciple that turned out badly (Sanh 103a/b; Ber 17b)
As a frivolous disciple who practiced magic and turned to idolatry (Sanh 107b; Sot 47a)
Jesus' punishment in afterlife (b Git 56b, 57a)
Jesus' execution (b Sanh 43a-b)
Jesus as the son of Mary (Shab 104b, Sanh 67a)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_...0Pesaro%201519)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 05:29 PM
 
18,250 posts, read 16,935,370 times
Reputation: 7554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek41 View Post
The argument that a historical Jesus didn’t exist is a weak one.
One can argue more about the question of his divinity, and the evidence for his resurrection.
The fact he was crucified is not such a big deal , it was a fairly common form of public execution at the time.
The bodily resurrection is the cornerstone of his claims of being the Messiah and the chosen one, and hence Christianity.
I’ve often questioned the validity of some of the OT stories, as you may have read.
There are often no historical or scientific records to support them.
Jesus as a historical figure I don’t think can be disputed.

I cannot find a single passage in the entire canon of secular historical literature that mentions a Jesus of Nazareth. Excluding the gospels, which all secular historians agree are testaments of faith, not history, what do you base your belief in Jesus as a legitimate historical figure on?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 07:08 PM
 
19,057 posts, read 27,627,799 times
Reputation: 20283
Originally Posted by Derek41 View Post
The argument that a historical Jesus didn’t exist is a weak one.
One can argue more about the question of his divinity, and the evidence for his resurrection.
The fact he was crucified is not such a big deal , it was a fairly common form of public execution at the time.
The bodily resurrection is the cornerstone of his claims of being the Messiah and the chosen one, and hence Christianity.
I’ve often questioned the validity of some of the OT stories, as you may have read.
There are often no historical or scientific records to support them.
Jesus as a historical figure I don’t think can be disputed.


That's deep. Like, Marian deep. There is not historical documents hence, existence of a person can not be disputed.
Deep.

PS. Again, I know teacher by the name Yeshua existed. Not the fiction character Jesus. Those are two absolutely different figures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 07:30 PM
 
2,435 posts, read 1,452,676 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by YorktownGal View Post
I've cut the OP in half because there is only so much crazy I can handle at one time.

1. accepted Jesus had a large family. Jesus was an only child. "Brothers" was a term used in ancient times to stress familial/kinship ties, not literally brothers. In 2024, we've replaced the phase "brothers" with cousins.

2. Jesus came from a relatively poor family

How did you come up with this? If Joseph was a carpenter and a craftsman, he would have been middle class. He would have needed money to set up a shop and a home in Egypt and to return again to Nazareth. To accomplish these moves proves Joseph was not poor.

3. Being the oldest of His brothers and sisters, a lot would be expected on Him to carry the family name.

https://www.commentary.org/articles/...d%20so%20forth.

Even in Christian Medieval history,

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Surnames/

So forget about carrying on a family name. Jesus only had to support his mother - there were no brothers/sisters to support.

4. Jesus following in the family business would have been considered a builder.

This is fanciful. All we know is Jesus was a carpenter. We don't know if he built wooden structure or bookcases and tables. We just don't know. If Jesus was a stone mason, then he wouldn't be a carpenter.

5. They believe Jesus took this message to heart, and began to commit His life toward ushering in God's kingdom

You have it backwards. John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus . . . . because John already knew Jesus' role.



If Jesus took John's message to heart, you are referring Jesus didn't know the time and place of His mission. John preparing the ground for Jesus is far different from Jesus changing his course of action from John's speech.

5. How He left everything behind in pursuit of this goal. Naturally looking at this, the world would condemn Jesus for doing such a thing, abandoning His family like that. Even more so given the culture of the oldest son having the responsibility of taking care of the family in the absence of the father. (And again, they were a poor family)

Jesus never abandoned his mother. There were no other family members and they weren't poor.

6. There was one instance where Mary and some of Jesus' brothers came to take Him back home, because there were those in His family who believed He wasn't in His right mind

Probably the most repugnant fanciful statement.

Mary knew:



Yeah, kind of a spoiler as to what was coming next.

Joseph knew:



Mary & Joseph knew:



There was the visit of the Magi



By the time Jesus was 40 days old, Mary knew he wasn't going to have a "normal" life. Joseph was told by Angels to move to Egypt. Jesus was found at the Temple preaching at age 12. Mary asked Jesus turned the water into wine.

I get you want to look at Jesus was a historical figure with 20/21st century thoughts. You haven't done it. You'll just made stuff up. You need links to historical facts to prove your points.

According to the picture painted by the Gospels about Jesus' life, He had brothers and sisters (actual siblings). We also know there was a lot of construction around the area of Nazareth. (Such as the Hellenistic city of Sepphoris) So in terms of craftsmanship, its most likely Jesus was a builder of stone. Plus it would explain why a lot of Jesus' teachings included things like building your house on the rock vs sand, teachings about the chief cornerstone the builders rejected, etc.


As for Jesus coming from a poor family, again the Gospels paints a picture for us. In Luke's account when Jesus was presented as a baby, Mary offered a pair of doves for her offering. This is something poor families present as offerings. (Leviticus 12 - A mother is instructed to offer a one year old lamb and turtledove to complete purification. Yet if they cannot afford a lamb, then two turtledoves, which Mary offered) Now in Matthew's account, we see the family receiving gifts from wise men coming from the East. Yet according to Matthew, that occurred up to two years after Jesus' birth. The gifts they gave would have funded their trip to Egypt. However, the story dealing with the wise men and the gifts, all of that is outside the scope of the Historical Jesus.


In families, we know the firstborn son receives the blessings and so forth from the father. The firstborn plays a significant role in the family. They inherit what the father has. So if Joseph died, the duties of carrying on the name of the father fall on the firstborn son. That's the general rule.


So when it comes to the message Jesus preached, we're talking from the Historical Jesus perspective. Looking at things from this view, all the mentions surrounding Jesus as being from God are viewed as claims. In this topic we are only using the Gospels to paint the picture on aspects of Jesus' life, not what His followers believed Him to be. Historians consider the Gospel writers as being biased in that way. That these Gospels were written in a way to convince others. So they look at mentions of His life that are least likely to be biased. Jesus having brothers and sisters, no bias angle there. Jesus being the son of a craftsman, his hometown, nothing too biased there. Him being baptized by John, not biased. So stuff like that is accepted concerning the Historical approached to Jesus.


As to links, sources, and all that, I'll just say anyone can look into these things for themselves. I honestly don't believe anything mentioned in this thread is worth all the commotion. This is just a simple thread speaking on some aspects of the Historical Jesus. Of course I get wanting sources and such. Yet if you ask me, nothing I've stated in this thread is all that remarkable to demand sources for. If someone posted a thread speaking to the historicity of any other religious figure, I wouldn't be demanding sources for this or that. I would just say "cool beans" and go on about my day. (If I didn't have much to add to the thread concerning the figure's historicity) To those who asked me, is it really that big of a deal if Jesus existed as a person? To others, is it really that big of a deal if Jesus had brothers and sisters? I have brothers and sisters, and I seriously doubt now knowing this, it changes the lives of anyone here. I don't know, I just find this weird. I thought the idea of Jesus leaving His family behind would be a cool thing to discuss, as it is not pointed out by many concerning Jesus, the tension and conflict He had with His family. (Among other topics) Yet I find too many of you perhaps just want to contend and argue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 07:46 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
20,028 posts, read 13,501,689 times
Reputation: 9953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
The early Christians looking in Josephus and Tacitus for a mention of Jesus did not find any in these accounts until after 300 AD for Josephus and even later for Tacitus, so they probably did not exist until they were added later.
The testimonium flavianum is also widely acknowledged by scholars as a pious fraud. It is an inexpertly grafted advertisement spliced in, that doesn't even make an effort to fit with the tone and flow of the rest of the text. There's also, as you point out, no early textual evidence for it.
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