aa5874

I am having problems with this sentence... The scholars and historians who set out to discover the Historical Jesus generally started with the New Testament, but removed all of the supernatural aspects.

How does one remove all of the supernatural events from the NT, without destroying the credibilty of the cannon? Supernatural events are the fundamental core and purpose of Jesus on earth.

This is Jesus according to John 10:37-38, 'If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
But if I do, though you believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Removing all supernatural events from the NT pose many serious chronological and logistical problems. If we examine, for example, the casting out of the devils, as described in Matthew 8:28-33, and this supernatural event is removed, what exactly does that mean?

Are they removing only Jesus from the event?
Are they removing only the 2 possesed with devils?
Are they removing the 2000 swine only?
How can they determine if the plausible events are true?

Now, if the scholars and the historians removed all the supernatural aspects of Jesus, they have, in effect, removed Jesus from the NT, since Jesus was a supernatural event.

If they removed Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:35 and John1:14 and all the supernatural miracles, the resurrection and ascension, how did they determine what is credible?

Toto

How do you know what the fundamental core and purpose of Jesus on earth was? What if the fundamental core and purpose of Jesus was to tell people to love one another and sacrifice themselves for the common good? There's nothing supernatural about that.

Thomas Jefferson took his scissors and removed all of the supernatural events from the Bible, and decided that what he was left with was a fine moral code.

aa5874

By simply reading the primary source, the NT.

The NT is a written report, or reports by authors of the pre-existence, birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. These reports show the fundamental core and purpose of Jesus.

1. Jesus was sent by God to save mankind. John 3:16, 'For God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but hath everlasting life'.

2. Jesus was sent by God to do his works. John 9:4-5, 'I must work the works of him that sent me while it is day: the night cometh when no man can work . As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world'.

John 14:12, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do also; because I go unto my Father'.

These are the fundamental core and purpose of Jesus as reported by the authors of the NT.

But where would you find a non-supernatural Jesus? The Jesus of the NT is of the supernatural. Do you just remove whatever does not fit your profile of Jesus.

Again, the NT claimed that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead after 4 days, as reported in John 11, this is a supernatural event. Jesus, according to the NT, was at a certain place, and made statements to people, if they reject the event, they can reject his statements, they can also reject that Lazarus or his family was present.

However, in order to accept any part of the episode, if one part is rejected, there must be some independent source to substantiate the acceptance. All reports, in the NT, about Jesus are unsubstantiated by contemporary historians.

So, all I need to be an HJer is a pair of scissors. Very bizarre.

Amaleq13

As you are no doubt well aware, IMV you are reading the Christian Bible too simplistically and everything that follows from your reading is flawed as a result.

No, it is an interrelated collection of written efforts expressing the authors' belief(s) in the significance of the death of Jesus with only a tangential regard for relating that significance to history.

It is misguided to consider this as anything but an expression of faith about the significance of the death of Jesus. In fact, it is arguably the central belief of Christianity about the significance of the death of Jesus.

This is yet another statement of faith that ultimately relates to the significance of the death of Jesus.

This is an explicit declaration of faith. His ultimate "work" was his self-sacrifice.

The magical birth stories speak to belief in the significance of his death.

The stories of his magical powers speak to belief in the significance of his death.

The magical resurrection stories speak to belief in the significance of his death.

Remove all the magic. Remove the magical birth, magical healing powers, and even the magical return from the dead but you still have a death that is considered significant.

And a death, certainly implies a life.

He is the one whose death we see mythologized in the Christian Bible.

Arguably, that is precisely what many have done including mythicists.

The common denominator is a significant death.

There is certainly substantiation for a sustained and growing belief in the signficance of his death. If you follow that sustained and growing belief back to the Gospel stories and epistles, you are still left with a death believed to be significant.

And a death, certainly implies a life.

This is no less true for mythicists. Only the nature of that life differs. They place theirs in some timeless spiritual (ie mythical) realm or the distant (ie mythical) past while their majority opposition place it right here on Earth in the timeframe provided by the Gospel stories.

No, that is not all you need. There is also a need for a logical and systematic approach to using those scissors. Not coincidently, that is precisely what is missing from yours as you have simply chucked the entire collection out the window.

Belief in the significance of a death implies a life.

The fact that believers wrote stories about that life which are filled with magic does not alter the fundamental assumption of the death nor the implication of a life.

aa5874

How do you get from magical birth to significant death? By magic?

Very simplistic and erroneous.

By the way, what does a missing body, suppposedly in a sealed tomb and under guard, imply?

So, when was he ever historicised, who historicised Jesus? Who saw his dead body? There are no rumors, anecdotes, myths or historical episodes in any extra-biblical writing of the 1st century about Jesus.


Historians need more than belief to substantiate the Gospel stories. You have a very simplistic view of historians.

The Gospel stories timeframe is yet to be confirmed, not even the NT itself can confirm their own timeframe.

I wouldn't know what to cut. What would you cut from the resurrection episode?


That has always been my opinion that the historicity of Jesus is baseless, it is based on the fundamental assumption of death or the implication of life. Thanks for confirming it, finally.

Amaleq13

No, by considering the evidence. Belief in a significant death is supported by the extant evidence.

Really? Please explain what dies that does not first live? Death is defined as the end of a life. A word certainly implies its own definition.

Preferring simplistic views apparently does not provide one the ability to accurately recognize them elsewhere.

Since I'm not convinced Paul knew of an empty tomb, I tend to consider it a later invention that implies the fate of Jesus' body was unknown to those who considered his death significant.

If you explain exactly what you mean by "historicised", I might be able to answer.

Who cares? It is irrelevant to the fact that his death was believed significant.

Why should there be? The evidence indicates his death was initially significant only to a few.

You really should avoid using words you don't understand.

I think you are confusing the timeframe within the story with the date of authorship.

The timeframe of the story is clearly confirmed by Josephus (eg Quirinius, Pilate, etc).

What resurrection episode?

You claim it is baseless in the same sentence you offer its basis? :rolling:

Belief in a significant death is supported by the extant evidence.

aa5874

Mythological figures, like the Greek mythological gods and my infamous myth, Jesus.

Also, may I remind you, in fictitious stories, death is the end of a character, this frequently happens in 'soaps'.

You have a vivid imagination and a pair of scissors.

When Marcion used his scissors and imagination on the NT, his Jesus became a 'phantom', and this was as early as the 2nd century.

When was Jesus made an historical figure, who made Jesus an historical figure?


There is no credible information in Josephus that links any character named Jesus that was rumored to be virgin born in the 1st century.

And what about the author of Matthew's timeframe? Does Josephus clearly confirm that too?

How did you move from 'fundamental assumption' of death to 'significant death supported by extant evidence'? By magic or the scissors?
Or have you found the body of Jesus since the last time you posted?

Amaleq13

You either did not read or did not understand my earlier post because I have already mentioned that myths have a "life" that can be lost.

The point is and always has been that you have no method or evidence to differentiate between the two despite your repeated assertions.

This is not a surprising assessment coming from someone who prefers to reduce complex issue to simplistic terms.

It is less a question of "imagination" than it is a thoughtful consideration of the evidence.

You apparently either lack the capacity or the will to engage in such thought. Either way, it does not bode well for a rational discussion.

One might wonder why he felt compelled to bother if one had sufficient capacity for it.

When someone asks you to explain what you mean by a term, repeating yourself with a variation of the same term is not an adequate reply.

You keep looking for the mythical Jesus and complaining when you don't find the historical Jesus. Stop trying to establish links to portions of the story that have already been rejected as mythical.

As it relates to the significant death, yes (ie Pilate). As long as you keep singing your one-note song about the magical conception, you will always be focused on the myth.

I have to question whether your obtusity is genuine when you seem incapable of grasping such a simple bit of reasoning. Belief in a significant death is supported by the extant evidence, therefore a death become a fundamental assumption.

All you need to do now is figure out a way to determine whether the movement based on the significant death originally began with a real man subsequently mythologized or with a myth from the beginning.

But the point is and always has been that you lack any such way and show no inclination or ability to obtain one but prefer to delude yourself into thinking you can reach your conclusion anyway.

Unless you wish to claim that Jimmy Hoffa is a myth because we don't know where his body is, the disposition of the body must be recognized as ultimately irrelevant to historicity.

aa5874

Let me simply state the undeniably truth, again.
Myths have a mythical life, as the word denotes, they have no real life to lose, they cannot really die, fictitious characters also.

My freind, Complexity is the sum of simplicity

I am of the view that the historicity of Jesus is baseless, that is not a complaint.

Jesus is linked to the mythological or fictional, not the historical. There are no rumors, anecdotes, mythological or credible historical references to Jesus by any 1st century historian, not even a bad omen. And, the NT does not appear to be credible, we even have suspected cases of tampering with historical writings to place Jesus in the 1st century.

Your belief is unsubstantiated, you have not shown that a character, whose time of birth is years apart, with 2 grandfathers on the father's side, whose body cannot be accounted, actually lived. You have not even substantianted the name of his parents, since in the NT, it may not be Joseph, and by extension Mary, as there is total confusion in the genealogies.

That's your job, you have the 'thoughtful scissors'. And in any event, you will only come up with a 'fabricated Jesus' not a historical Jesus.

This is totally unnecessary. If I say the same about you, nothing will be achieved. I prefer if you deal with the issues, show me evidence, show me a passage of scripture, show me a passage from a 1st century historian that supports your fundamental assumption of death.

I will no longer respond to frivolity.

I don't even know which Jimmy Hoffa you are talking about. And are you claiming that this 'Jimmy Hoffa' was publicly executed, buried in a sealed tomb under guard and his body disappeared within days.

The story of the death of Jesus, is that he was publicly executed, buried in a sealed tomb while under guard. His body was never seen again, the explanation is that he rose from the dead and he is coming back.

I consider the entire episode to be nonsense, apparently you do not. What information do you have to support such an episode, or the fundamental assumption of death?

jgibson000

Why does the passage have to be from a first century historian to qualify as evidence?

More importantly, what are your criteria for judging historical evidence as "credible"? Are your criteria themselves credible? Would they be judged so by professional historians?

And why do you rule out, as you apparently do, Josephus' statement about Jesus' execution as not only 1st century evidence, but as "credible" 1st century evidence?

JG