The Historical Jesus

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I’m not sure why you would quote the Babylonian Talmud. The Talmud says he was hanged the day before Passover. The Gospels says he was crucified on Passover. The Gospels make no mention of an heraldic announcement saying he would be stoned.

This doesn’t support your claims of scriptural accuracy.

Boru

Are you going to agree with me that Jesus was hanged within 3 days of the Jewish Passover? Or is a minor disagreement enough to discredit us both.

Lets say that the heraldic announcement actually did happen, would the Gospels need to record it in order for them to be regarded as historically accurate?

Did the Gospels claim that there was no heraldic announcement?

Further beyond that point not all 4 biographies tell all the same stories, but when they do report the same stories the details are different. I'll be impressed if you can tell me why that might be the case.


Side-note: So are we just going to drop the part where you referenced Moby Dick? Or was that going somewhere.

There is a reason, while growing up, that secular history class did not include lessons on Jesus. Religious scripture tends to contain elements that are non-historical.

Okay, so secular history class is your measuring stick? 

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and them then reassemble to partake of food - but food of an ordinary and innocent kind" - Pliny the Younger Roman author and administrator. in a letter to the Emperor Trajan in about 112 A.D.

Questions asked of me, in order:

1. No.

2. Hardly ‘minor’.

3. It would help. 

4. No, which doesn’t help your case.

5. Prepare to be impressed: The reason the Gospels aren’t identical is that they were written by and for different groups of people, separated by time and distance, who were writing down stories they’d heard. The idea that these stories were written by eyewitnesses simply isn’t tenable.

6. We can drop it, if that makes it easier for you to avoid the point.

Boru

[h311inac311]

"6. We can drop it, if that makes it easier for you to avoid the point." - Boru

Well that's nice because I was beginning to wonder what kind of idiot would compare a work of self-professed fiction to the biography of 4 different historians.

Also I fully understood your point, but there's just one problem that I have with it. Can you explain to me how the over-abundance of copies of Moby Dick wouldn't make it harder for someone to produce an altered version and pass it off as the original?

5. Actually, yes I am impressed, but my question to you then is that if everything that you've said is true, why then do the Gospels agree on so much if they weren't collected by historians who were in fact interviewing eye-witnesses?

2. Well it wouldn't be 'minor' in the context of Judaism, I can agree with you on that. However, the larger point remains the same, Jesus was put on trial and, as the scriptures foretold, "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he was brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth." this prophecy is now confirmed as being true, not just by the authors of the Gospel, but also by the biggest opponents to Jesus' ministry.
      Jesus was hung on a tree, and it was very close to Passover. And whose to say that a single day didn't pass before Jesus said, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani"?


As it is written, "Whereas many have undertaken to write a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having accurately investigated all things from the very beginning, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the certainty of the things which you have been told."

[h311inac311]

My measure for what is historical is the ordinary, the natural. For a faith that is unnatural will see witches where history shows they were just ordinary women.

When did history prove that witches aren't real.

[brewer]

OP: No one can argue a god into existence. At most you can argue the abstract concept exists, a product of the mind. The 'historical' that you want to argue needs to be backed up by concrete evidence........... or they remain mythologized stories.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

"6. We can drop it, if that makes it easier for you to avoid the point." - Boru

Well that's nice because I was beginning to wonder what kind of idiot would compare a work of self-professed fiction to the biography of 4 different historians.

Also I fully understood your point, but there's just one problem that I have with it. Can you explain to me how the over-abundance of copies of Moby Dick wouldn't make it harder for someone to produce an altered version and pass it off as the original?

5. Actually, yes I am impressed, but my question to you then is that if everything that you've said is true, why then do the Gospels agree on so much if they weren't collected by historians who were in fact interviewing eye-witnesses?

2. Well it wouldn't be 'minor' in the context of Judaism, I can agree with you on that. However, the larger point remains the same, Jesus was put on trial and, as the scriptures foretold, "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he was brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth." this prophecy is now confirmed as being true, not just by the authors of the Gospel, but also by the biggest opponents to Jesus' ministry.
      Jesus was hung on a tree, and it was very close to Passover. And whose to say that a single day didn't pass before Jesus said, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani"?


As it is written, "Whereas many have undertaken to write a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having accurately investigated all things from the very beginning, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the certainty of the things which you have been told."

6. No, you clearly DON’T get the point, so I’ll try again: the number of extant copies of a work - any work - has nothing to do with the historical accuracy of that work.. Btw, the Synoptics are NOT biographies.

5. The Gospels have common points because the authors were telling the same story. There are no eyewitnesses to Odin hanging himself from Yggdrasil, but it’s in all the fables about him. Eyewitnesses are no necessary to the propagation of a myth.

2. You may need to read the story again. Jesus wasn’t hung on a tree, he wasn’t even nailed to a tree. And one of the points the Gospels agree on is that Jesus was tried, crucified, and died all on the same day.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Interesting, this is the first time I've encountered a historical narrative this skewed against Jesus.

Is it skewed against jesus?  If so, that's not great.... since it's the consensus view of the character in the new testament.  

Here is my first question for all of you, when did people start to point out that Jesus wasn't a real person? Or that all of the miracles were made up? How long did it take the ancient world to produce this account?

About three centuries ago as far as it relates to us.  To be fair, people pointed out that jesus wasn't real the very minute that jesusism was born.  We know this because christian scholars, though they rarely kept the record of the complaints..did tend to keep a record of their attempted rebuttals.

As far as I know, Luke is actually a highly regarded historian. As the author of his gospel as well as Acts; I have heard that so far every single name of a person, place or a thing that can be accounted for by modern archaeology has been confirmed to be true. A quote from New Testament scholar Greg Bloomberg, "A historian who has been found trustworthy where he or she can be tested should be given the benefit of the doubt in cases where no tests are available." So far we have more than 70 confirmed tests of Luke's historical accuracy which means that Luke is, by any standard, a trustworthy historian.

Luke is considered to be reliable on some things, and not on others.  Obviously, no one doing history includes the parade of miracles as credible.  That would be evangelism, not history.

Beyond this we have the over-abundance of copies of the New Testament, every-single book and letter has more than 1,000 early copies for us to compare against one another. Yes, scholars will make mistakes, but they won't make the same mistakes in the same places. Consider this simple example.

The cat leaped
A cat jumped
the dog jumped

Here we have 3 copies of 1 original message. Can you tell me what the original message is even though each copy is off by 1 out of every 3 words.

With 4 biographies, all of which containing a compatible story, I think we have every reason to believe in the Historical Jesus, but beyond that we have the witness of the apostles, men who were willing to die for their risen King.

Historical jesus does not include a risen king.  The trouble, in the end, with "the historical jesus" is that the consensus view is that the character in the new testament is a composite.  To use your analogy above.  You're asking us whether or not we believe in the possibility of four different hypothetical men, none of which are gods.  

Have you given that question I asked any thought?  Do you think it matters whether one or more of the normal human beings who became the biblical jesus existed?  Would you believe that a christian life was a good life, if there were no christ?

[MR. Macabre 666]

Hanged, not hung. People are hanged, things are hung. This drives me crazy.

[Foxaèr]

Hanged, not hung. People are hanged, things are hung. This drives me crazy.

A man can be hung. Between the legs.

[The Grand Nudger]

Okay, so secular history class is your measuring stick? 

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and them then reassemble to partake of food - but food of an ordinary and innocent kind" - Pliny the Younger Roman author and administrator. in a letter to the Emperor Trajan in about 112 A.D.

A wonderful example of historic or literary anachronism.  The year is 112ad.  60 some years have passed, christianity is everywhere, a parade of miracles has been ongoing for decades, against the backdrop of a vast pagan pogrom...according to christian tradition.

Pliny doesn't know shit about the guys, he describes a christianity quite unlike anything later roman writers (and contemporary readers) would recognize, the emperor doesn't care.  Says fuck it, leave em be and don't take shit from weird locals flinging random accusations at them.

Something is amiss. The experiment can be repeated from any number of angles and sources. The clear pattern that emerges is that history did not match with christian tradition until some time after the capture of the roman administrative state by christians. Christians who, in most cases, would not be recognized as such now. They still had internal work to do. A person can dispense of any burden in arguing for or over the historicity of christ..in fact we can simply assume that christ was absolutely real if we like and just leave it at that - but this is still what happened to the literary tradition of christ, and christian history, even in that case.

The question then is not whether christ was historic, but why christians fucked christs historicty so badly. How it came to be that they had the real deal, and a real history - but decided to write about other things. I guess the brief answer there was that christians engaged in fantasy and revisionism because to objects to which they were applied were religiously or politically important to them, then. It's not yet clear why or even if they're important to contemporary christians like yourself, today.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@h311inac311

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and them then reassemble to partake of food - but food of an ordinary and innocent kind" - Pliny the Younger Roman author and administrator. in a letter to the Emperor Trajan in about 112 A.D.

You’re veering. This says nothing about an historic Jesus. It says that in 112 CE, Pliny was aware of a community of Christians.

I am perfectly happy to stipulate that there were Christian communities in the second century.

Boru