aa5874

Well, please tell me the truth about Jesus of the NT. Every one is probably aware of standard practices. I need sources from antiquity.

What was his real name? What were the names of his real mother and father? Where did he actually live? Did he really preach? And when did he really die? Was a mere man deified by Jews in Judea after he was executed for blasphemy? Did Jews traditionally deify men or even Emperors?

And what sources of antiquity can be used to corroborate the history of a deified Jew in Jerusalem where deification is intolerable?


We are not really discussing culture or fishing in the 1st century. I am dealing specifically and precisely with sources of antiquity which CLEARLY state that Jesus was the offspring of the HOLY GHOST who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended and multiple-attested by the authors of the NT and Church writings.


Now, please tell how you came to find out about the movement was it not from the literature?

To find out when and how that culture was developed you must use written sources of antiquity once there is no physical or archaeological evidence.

But, we are dealing with a SPECIFIC character who was described in the NT and Church writings as the offspring of the HOLY GHOST OF GOD.


But, what you say is just completely absurd. The OP is directly based on such an investigation.

After investigating the claims by HJers, I have found the HJ to be a most SENSELESS proposition.

History cannot be argued on imagination, you must produce credible historical sources and no such source can be produced for Jesus. Virtually all the sources for Jesus of the NT either described him as Divine with the ability to perform as a God or supernaturally.

Larkin31

I have already recommended two books to you by someone who does just what you ask. I am not a Biblical scholar. Will you read them? Are you actually interested?

So what? Not every historian wants to focus on Jesus' divinity in his or her research. Again, all you are doing is denying the validity of historical research into the tales of myth and religion. And you do this simply on the false grounds that ALL historians accept the fact that Odysseus took ten years to journey home simply because the primary literary text says so. That is a false premise. Any conclusion gleaned from it (or about Achilles' ACTUAL existence and/or birth) is suspect as well.

I was told by my Sundayschool-teaching parents. But there are many other documents referring to early Christians--and their is physical evidence. Your point seems to be simply, "Because the Bible says it is so, it is so."

Which is not thorough historical reasoning.


Which investigation was that?

bacht

hey Larkin

There are at least two problems with the New Testament stories:
- Jesus is a unique character, God and man simultaneously
- the NT books are religious, aimed at other Christians, not the general literate public - there were Christian apologists but their work is not part of the biblical canon

If Jesus was/is truly divine then the normal rules of history aren't applicable are they? Also how exactly would we imagine the impact such a person would've had on contemporaries?

The basic paradox in the gospels is that Jesus is portrayed as a famous miracle-worker and teacher, yet he wasn't noticed by non-Christian contemporaries. Thus either he was nothing special, which explains the silence in the secular literature, or he was as amazing as depicted but somehow his contemporaries were blind to his words and deeds, which is hard to figure unless a purely "spiritual" person is being described, visible only to believers.

I don't believe in supernaturalism so any sort of "God broke the rules" kind of argument doesn't interest me. But I can accept phenomena like dreams or hallucinations, these are part of human psychology.

kcdad

Your generalization of The New Testament "testimony" about Jesus is inaccurate.

There are several "testimonies" some of which differ greatly in their description of Jesus' qualitative or quantitative differences to every day human beings...

"If Jesus was divine" is a false premise... "if some people described him as divine" would be the correct premise. (In the same way some people described Octavian, a contemporary, as divine)

bacht

Well, who exactly was Jesus then? Was he a healer and teacher? Was he the Logos? Was he the miraculous child of Mary?

According to Catholics and most other Christians Jesus is the son of God, "consubstantial" with the Father. If not then why was a religion built on his name? None of us would be discussing any of this if no-one believed in the divinity of Christ all those centuries ago.

Larkin31

Why not? How do you mean? All we have to examine WITH are the "normal tools" of historians and our "normal" brains (if you will grant me mine). :wave:


I "imagine" quite a range of possible reactions. But what I imagine is not relevant. The question requires attestation of sources and investigation of additional sources. The "impact" should be determined empirically, from sources.

One of the vector's of impact is the genesis of a religious movement, about which we have multiple sources, mostly from believers.

aa5874

But, I have read from sources of antiquity about Jesus in the NT, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Municius Felix, Chrysostom, Jerome, Tatian, Severus, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus and other writings of antiquity.

I am doing a lot of reading. I am interested in sources of antiquity about Jesus.

You cannot ignore information about a character that is multiple-attested to be true that will invalidate your historical research. No-one dares reject the information about Zeus, Serapis, Romulus, or Achilles in order to make an analysis of their nature.

Although the activities and descriptions of Cyclops, Apollo, Zeus, Serapis, Romulus and Achilles are all legendary fables, no-one today dares to change any description or activities of any of those creatures without first finding a source of antiquity.

The description and activities of Jesus cannot be changed today unless you can produce sources of antiquity that described him as only human.

Jesus was described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God with the Virgin Mary, who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

But, you believe what your parents say? If your mommy/daddy says so, it is so?

I do not believe that the Jesus stories are historical. I consider Jesus a MYTH.

Now, please tell your Sunday school teachers that ONLY one source outside of the NT and Church writings where there are forgeries with the name Jesus Christ and even then, Jesus was described as one who raised from the dead.

And even in the first century being a Christian did not necessarily mean you were a follower of Jesus of the NT.

The investigation that caused me to read the NT, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Municius Felix, Chrysostom, Jerome, Tatian, Severus, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus and other writings of antiquity.

And it is now my position that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

Larkin31

Wow. That is a lot of reading. Have you ever read a modern historian's examination of the material? For example, who do you accept as the actual authors of the various texts of the NT?

Again, you are mixing two disciplines here: the historical with the literary. Do you not see that?

No one "changes" the descriptions or activities. We investigate the historical likelihood of the various historical elements of the account.

Of course not. I don't believe everything I read, either.

I know.


How many of these were first-hand witnesses to the events of Jesus' life? I don't know all the names, but I will hazard the guess that none of these men knew Jesus or witnessed any of the events of his life. So what do they attest? Stories told to them? No one denies that stories were told and retold and even written down and preserved.

Elena

Of course you are entitled to your opinion.
It is not because you do not understand the "teachings" that it is irrational, quite the contrary.
The christian "Prince of Peace" is irrational, but the "Prince of War" fit perfectly with the time and place.
Maybe you do not understand the Kingdom of God meaning?

Elena

You can not show that an HJ did not exist.