aa5874

Right now, as I said before I am interested in sources of antiquity. It would seem to me that writers are only presenting the information that support their position so I have concentrated on reading the sources myself.


Well, why don't you simply first show the historical separately and then show the literary afterwards. Ok, don't show any literary.

Please list all you know that is historical about Jesus. Please do not include the literary in the list. I don't want any mix-up of disciplines.

Please give your findings on the historical elements of the conception, temptation, the walking on water, the healing of incurable ailments in an instant, the transfiguration, the resurrection and ascension.

But, you believe that the Bible is true when it says Jesus did exist during the time of Tiberius even though there are only forgeries about Jesus Christ outside the Bible in Josephus.

Well maybe your Sunday school teachers don't know that there is really virtually nothing about Jesus and his supposed followers in the 1st century.


But, the NT, based on the Church writers, contains books written by disciples, contemporaries, and relatives of Jesus.

And, it must noted that these disciples, contemporaries and relatives of Jesus wrote that he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, tempted by the Devil on the pinnacle of the Temple, walked on water, healed incurable ailments, raised the dead, transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

A Pauline writer, a supposed contemporary of Jesus, wrote that he saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

Now, if there are no other sources for Jesus, then his historicity is not recoverable and he must remain, as described, a MYTH until eternity or when historical evidence is found.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition until historical information can be recovered.

Larkin31

I see that this is not going anywhere.

kcdad

You want me to answer that question for you? I am a teacher, not answer giver. You have to seek out and find your own answers.

Don't listen to Catholics unless you want to be just another Catholic. Don't listen to Christians unless you want to be just another Christian.

There are plenty of people... hundreds of thousands if not millions (many of whom have not been assassinated by the church), maybe even billions who have followed the teachings of Jesus without believing anything in particular about his "divine" nature.

aa5874

Well, please first show me a source of antiquity that makes mention of your HJ and then I will examine the source for its credibility.

Tell me some more about your HJ. I am eager to investigate him/her.

By the way, is your HJ a female or male? Tell me more.

bacht

Well there are at least two ways to approach Jesus: either from the orthodox teachings of the churches, or from personal interpretation. I agree that there are many possible ways to imagine Jesus and the meaning of his ministry, but the church teachings seem almost unanimous in claiming the divinity of Jesus Christ the Son of God (wasn't it heretical to deny this before the Reformations?)

Catholics started this whole game. They developed the basic theology and collected the literature that became the New Testament. Regardless of any personal feeligs about the RCC the historical fact is that they provided the foundation that other Christians have built on.

As for who the historical Jesus "really" was we may never know. I don't think there was a specific person, but there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to settle the question either way.

bacht

The argument that "there's no smoke without fire" isn't useful in this debate (it's about sociology not physics). We all know that by the 4th C the Catholic church had developed enough to become officially supported by the Roman state. We also know that Judaism claims to have started with Moses, who may have been completely mythical.

If Jesus was truly divine then he could change/ignore the regular behaviour of matter and energy. Science can't measure such things. A divine saviour might have the power to cloud men's minds or create illusions or whatever. A divine being could have produced the New Testament books without human hands. There are endless possibilities, none of which can be assessed by normal rules of probability.

Historians are stuck with the tools of history: who what when where how and hopefully why. Explaining phenomena outside empirical data isn't their job.

Larkin31

I agree entirely and was trying to make the same point. But, one of the vectors with empirical evidence is the movement.

Larkin31

You don't believe that there was an actual single person who had followers and was killed by the authorities?

bacht

There were many Jews who resisted authority to the death in the 1st C. The Teacher of Righteousness from Qumran resisted the Jerusalem authorities in Hasmonean times. Simon bar-Kochba convinced people that he was a messiah in the 130s with predictable results.

Being a rebel or a martyr wasn't an original idea in 30 AD. Expecting the world to end in your lifetime wasn't so common, but that's the crazy part isn't it?

Larkin31

This doesn't really address my point. Of course there were others; we know about them, too.

I meant to ask, do you not believe that there was a specific figure who had a group of followers who was executed and upon whom Christianity was built?