CountryPreacher

This is an area of considerable interest to me, however, since this is my first post, I am not sure of the topic or the ground-rules. Is it just Drew's book and position that is being discussed, or is it the broader area of the historicity of Jesus? Since I do not have Drew's book, and, in addition, think his position out of date, I would not chose to respond.

If the general topic is the later I would certainly argue for the man Jesus being an historical figure.

I would appreciate a response as I attempt to feel my way, and to find areas of personal interest interest.

mountainman

Ben, where is that spray can?

Welcome.


One should not assume anything is "out of date" or "in date". Things have a habit of evolving without any respect to current opinion.



You would need to produce evidence for your argument that your man Jesus H was indeed an historical figure. The book here, spends a fair amount of time going throough the evidence which has been tendered by historical examinations of the claim of your man Jesus H's historicity.

Do you have any evidence not yet already specified?

Best wishes


Pete Brown

Baalazel

Welcome CP, argue away. Was the man Jesus also the god Christ?

Baal

Toto

Welcome CountryPreacher:

Here are the ground rules.

This thread is about Drews work. If you have nothing to say about Drews, please don't post in this thread.

The subject of whether Jesus was a historical figure has been debated inside and outside here for some years. If you want to discuss that general topic, I would advise you to read through some recent threads and decide if you can add anything new to the topic.

Thanks for asking.

Toto,
moderator

CountryPreacher

I would suggest that there is sufficient evidence to support the physical existence of a man called Jesus. This is as rational a conclusion as with any other figure in history. The source of information is the Gospels which are "primary sources for the history of the early church, and only secondarily sources for the history of Jesus." (James Robinson in reference to Wellhausen, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus p. 35.

In spite of the fact that the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are more than historians, they are historians. The "Synoptic Problem" is actually evidence of an historical fact of the existence of Jesus. While Matthew and Luke draw extensively from Mark, and change Mark where it suits them, they in fact validate the basic outline of Mark and Marks sources.

I should note that none of my understanding of Mark shows any divine awareness on the part of Jesus. Armstrong in her book A History of God properly notes that

Mark's Gospel, which as the earliest is usually regarded as the most reliable, presents Jesus as a perfectly normal man, with a family that included brothers and sisters. No angels announced his birth or sang over his crib."

p. 80

It is noted that the Messiah is seen by the Jews as human not divine. To speak of Jesus as the Christos (adj) only says he was "anointed." In Hebrew Scripture Kings were anointed with oil which was a sign that God had chosen them for their office, and you can find that in both Saul and David that when they had been anointed, the Spirit of Yahweh came upon them mightily, (1 Sam. 10:6 - 16:13)

It is true that in Mark, the earliest of the Gospels, there is already myth, but myth is in any ancient writing either stated or implied. Mark is the most secular of the Gospels, and sees Jesus certainly as the Messiah and as the Christ, but for Mark this is seen as a fulfillment of Hebrew Scripture and Jewish beliefs. For Mark he was human but special. The fact that Mark has "The Spirit, like a dove, descending on him" at his baptism is more indication of the humanity, not the divinity of Jesus.

An interesting side note. One of my favorite works is Der Antichrist - Nietzsche. Walter Kaufmann, arguably the greatest of the Nietzsche scholars, calls into question the English title as being "ambiguous." (The Portable Nietzsche p. 565 He goes on to state that the title could also mean "The Anti-Christian," and I would suggest that in light of that, and the fundamental regard Nietzsche had for not only the Hebrew Scriptures but for the teachings of Jesus as well, that Nietzsche viewed Jesus as an historical figure. Of course this is beyond any kind of proof, but of personal interest to me.

When Nietzsche says the last Christian died on the Cross he speaks both historically and theologically as do I.

Toto

It has already been shown that every element in Mark can be traced to the Hebrew Scriptures. Why is Mark at all historical?

Minimalist

And, aside from the so-called gospels, which are self-serving documents, of dubious authorship and dating, what "historical evidence" do you have?

Amaleq13

How do you reach this conclusion without assuming it as part of the argument?

Their apparent acceptance of the "basic outline of Mark" does not necessarily say anything about the historical reliability of the story. It really only suggests precedence and approval.

Ben C Smith

Not every element. But a heck of a lot, yes.

Can these arguments ever be made without hyperbole?

Ben.

Toto

What element of Mark can not be traced to the Hebrew Scriptures?