Elijah

Modern scholarship hasn’t dismissed anything, reality dismisses the outlandish claims. What isn’t possible isn’t believed but there is zero reason to believe that if the story came from a historical core to think he was more than working class. To argue otherwise is ridicules. You can argue that he wasn’t historic but to argue that he was anything of note in society is baseless speculation.
Of course there is a recording of it but it isn’t accepted as credible by skeptics since it is biased by Christians. What you want is some outside source to reconfirm for you, when there is no reason to expect such evidence… no reason at all.
Yea if you imagine seeing Stephen die willingly and it isn’t something you’ve seen or heard of anyone else doing then it’s understandable. Pretty traumatic moment for him I imagine.
Well he has to use the OT for authority because he doesn’t have any written gospel to use. Jesus was the messiah but he wasn’t considered the morality teacher/authority he is today back then. Paul’s understanding of Christ is going to be unique because he is coming from a more formally educated religious background unlike the first apostles. He takes great liberties not only with not only incorporating the gentiles but also crapping all over the Law in the process of trying to establish Christ as the messiah. They weren’t trying to establish a teaching or a philosophy they were trying to establish Christ as king to dethrone the earthly kings.
The tradition should be considered evidence even if not credible unless you have some reason to believe otherwise. A simple self sacrifice imitated by his followers shouldn’t be such a huge stretch of the imagination to see.
If he was a rebel leader I think his story would be of the rebellion he was a part of. If you mean an ideological rebel leader then you are getting close to how I see him, but I see no reason to imagine the rebel leader to be anything more than working class.
Sounds like a good movie. Ass kicking rebel leader Jesus taking it to the empire.

Elijah

My point is that your understanding of what the holy ghost is doesn't have to be like Casper it can be more rational if you so choose. Tracking yet?

aa5874

It is the authors of the NT that presented their evidence, their written statements. According to the authors' evidence, the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and she produced the offspring of the Ghost. And, one day he rose from the dead and ascended through the clouds See the gospels called Matthew and Luke, they presented their written statements, their evidence.

Again, I regard the "holy ghost as fiction, non-existing myth, you seem to think the "holy ghost" can be retrieved.

Elijah

It's not how you regard it that is being discussed but how you understand it. Are you capable of understanding spirit as anything but a cartoon like entity?

Petergdi

Fairly soon after the fall of the temple, the group that took it on themselves to define what was and wasn't Judaism seem to have decided pretty solidly against those who thought Jesus was the messiah being proper observers of Judaism.

The story of Gamaliel II commenting on a Matthew-type Jewish Gospel (Shabbat 116 a-b) indicates that it was seem by influential rabbis as contrary to Moses despite the text's insistance that it wasn't.

There is no way to show whether that story actually dates to the time of Gamaliel II, but it certainly appears to reference a Matthew type Gospel which includes a saying not found in our Matthew - "son and daughter inherit together." It is also clear that it isn't a serious commentary - the author of the story could not really have taken the saying to mean monetary or other material inheritance, but it does indicate that the author was aware that the Matthew-type gospel insisted that its message was not contrary to Moses and yet the author believed a real conflict to exist.

Peter.

spamandham

Which texts are you referring to, and what is your presumed timeline for the various texts you consider relevant to the discussion?

spamandham

Sure it has. Are you unfamiliar with the work of the Jesus Seminar?

Reality often also recognizes that when a character is tightly bound to the outlandish, it isn't valid to simply remove the outlandish and declare whatever is left to be reality.

There is zero reason to think the historical core *was* working class, or that the historical core exsted in the 1st century. You fundamentally do not understand the gospels.

:rolling:

The irony is strong with this one.

There is a recording of it, but not by Jesus' contemporaries. That's kinf of the point.

If you believe that nonsense, this is pretty hopeless. Even if you don't accept modern scholarship, you should at least familiarize yourself with the basics of it to argue from an informed position.

So it's only later on when everyone had long forgotten what Jesus taught that his moral teachings became familiar? If Paul didn't know those teachings, then the gospels are 100% rather than just possibly 90% BS.

Elijah

I laid out what I thought happened. If you can't follow or don't want to accept for whatever reason you have is entirely up to you, but if you want me to consider your position then you need to support it.

andrewcriddle

There may be an issue here about the definition of "peasant", however there are references in Paul to the poverty of Jesus during his earthly ministry, eg 2 Corinthians 8:9 Andrew Criddle

aa5874

This shows that you have no regard for the written statements of the authors of the NT and the church writers. You simply think your imagination is true.

The evidence or written statements from these authors presented Jesus as God, never as only man.

Now, if you believe that the written starements, the evidence, of these writers are false, erroneous and mis-leading, there is no credible left to support your imagination.

I reject the entire NT since it appears to be implausible, fictitious and incredible.