Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?

Kap,

What a great thread.
It has made me send snippets to all of my brainwashed family of bible beating believers to just get them to look at the "possibility" that they may be incorrect with their outlook on history.

I love the way that you keep this logical, rational and unemotional (which most religions are prone not to do) and they way that you keep shooting down all the "theories and beliefs" out there by just continuing to ask the same question over and over. Like a good lawyer, you continue to say, "Show me the beef"....Or was that a commercial that people thought was real?.....lol

What's so funny is how upset folks get when they can't logically answer a question unless it has an emotional or "self held belief" response to it. So it is a knee jerk reaction to spout out, "It's the WORD of GOD so it must be real"...what a joke.

Some one even said something about this jesus person having parents named joseph and mary....hahahha...unreal...they really believe that people in the middle east used those english names thousands of years ago? Really????? Cmon.........

I, personally, can't even make it past the 2nd verse of the bible cause I am still unsure who is narrating the story.

Will continue to follow. kudos...

god told me, in my THOUGHT, through his son, not to star and flag so I shall do as he says...

peas

adj

To say that John was written in 90, but included no reference at all to such a cataclysmic event seems odd.

Another way of looking of it is that there'd be no particular reason to mention a historic event 20-50 years later, when telling a story that ends 35 years +/- before the cataclysm.

There's no reason to think that the author of John is Jewish if he is not the Beloved Disciple. If he isn't Jewish, then it wasn't a cataclysm for him.

Also, I think the destruction of Jerusalem ended the "Jerusalem Church" as a factor in the Chrsitian movement. If John was written for a Gentile audience, there being few other Christians to write for near the turn of the century, then it wasn't a cataclysm for them, either.

Similarly, Luke's book of Acts not only fails to mention the events of 70AD

I'm OK with Luke-Acts earlier than John and later than Matthew.

No, the death of Paul is not narrated in Acts. I agree that had it been included, that would help in dating. It is not clear that its omission is equally helpful.

For one thing, we don't have anything except tradition for how and when Paul died. So, I don't know what was omitted... clearly something that could bear on why it was omitted.

In any event, the Acts author doesn't say who his sources were. His source for Paul may simply have died before Paul did. Since Acts doesn't say why it is written, and it is not, taken as a whole, "a biography of Paul," the author may not have seen any reason to tie off the loose end.

Anyway, Luke's out of the running for this thread because he says he's a researcher, and doesn't say he found eyewitness writing.

And um, you know that I wouldn't dream of persuading you .

GC

Thanks for the additional information. It would probably be easiest if you told us what edition you saw this in, when you can.

But 14 instead of 13 isn't a translation issue. The originals didn't have chapters and verses. The numberings and divisions were added later, solely for ease of reference.

(I checked an Orthodox Bible, Romanian as it happens, on this issue just in case the schism was the problem, the way it is with the organizaion of Daniel. But no, Ioan 13 is the Last Supper, and BTW, there was another vote for a third-person construction.)

Originally posted by eight bits

Similarly, Luke's book of Acts not only fails to mention the events of 70AD

I'm OK with Luke-Acts earlier than John and later than Matthew.

No, the death of Paul is not narrated in Acts. I agree that had it been included, that would help in dating. It is not clear that its omission is equally helpful.

For one thing, we don't have anything except tradition for how and when Paul died. So, I don't know what was omitted... clearly something that could bear on why it was omitted.

In any event, the Acts author doesn't say who his sources were. His source for Paul may simply have died before Paul did. Since Acts doesn't say why it is written, and it is not, taken as a whole, "a biography of Paul," the author may not have seen any reason to tie off the loose end.

Anyway, Luke's out of the running for this thread because he says he's a researcher, and doesn't say he found eyewitness writing.

Correct, although if we were to accept that Luke wrote prior to 67AD, then it forces Matthew to be written in a timeframe when it becomes likely that he did, in fact, write his Gospel, as Luke is rarely considered to have been the base of the Synoptics.

Given Paul's prominence in the church and the fact that Luke hung around him a lot, it seems pretty remote that Luke would have been unaware of Paul's death in Rome, or that he would have dismissed the inclusion of his martyrdom as irrelevant. As with the ignoring of the Temple's destruction, which can be viewed as a "pretty darn good reason for the whole Jesus' sacrifice thing", it requires us to assume something that seems quite odd. If the only two options are "Acts was written while Paul was still alive" or "Luke didn't think it important to document the death of his mentor and friend", I'm leaning toward the first.

Late dating can be used to force the claim of the OP, because it is unlikely that any of those who knew Christ was still alive by 80-90AD. Early dating doesn't disprove that, but it makes it much more likely that eyewitnesses were available to write and/or testify to the events in question.

And um, you know that I wouldn't dream of persuading you

.

Thanks, lol

Luke is rarely considered to have been the base of the Synoptics.

I could live with an early Mark, even maybe 65 CE or so.

the fact that Luke hung around him a lot

I don't know that Luke hung around with Paul.

it seems pretty remote that Luke would have been unaware of Paul's death in Rome, or that he would have dismissed the inclusion of his martyrdom as irrelevant.

If Luke doesn't say how Paul died, then why would I assume that he knew how Paul died? His not knowing would seem a candidate explanation for the omission.

Also, of course, I don't know that Paul was matyred. Or if he was, what the details were. Maybe he died in transit. Maybe he was "shot while trying to escape." Then again, maybe his appeal to the Emperor succeeded, and he died later of natural causes. I have no idea. I just know what the "traditional" story is, and that Luke declined to say.

If the only two options are "Acts was written while Paul was still alive" or "Luke didn't think it important to document the death of his mentor and friend", I'm leaning toward the first.

You can't really be surprised that I don't think those are the only two options.

A little experiment. Someone I knew very well, really well, for eleven years, but hadn't seen in the past five years, died recently. The only reason I know that is because one, exactly one, other person went out of their way to tell me. "Out of their way" was to send me an email. That person was not a witness to my friend's passing, but found out in an unusual way, and told me, an unusual thing for the person to choose to do.

I will also say that I didn't entirely believe what I was told. My source was not atop my credible informant list. It was difficult to verify my friend's passing. I was able, by active search, to locate other witnesses who confirmed what my one source had said.

This is the 21st Century. I came within an ace of simply losing track of my one-time friend. If I had found out a year from now, or five years from now, it would be very difficult to establish how he died.

You and I are discussing the First and Second Century. I think it's the easiest thing in the world for Luke to lose track of reliable information about Paul's last days. All that is necessary for him to omit the incident is to have the honesty not to repeat rumor.

That can't be the worst trait in a Gospel author.

Originally posted by theonlyrusty
Some one even said something about this jesus person having parents named joseph and mary....hahahha...unreal...they really believe that people in the middle east used those english names thousands of years ago? Really????? Cmon.........

This is not James ossuaries. This is Jesus ossuaries. It's genuine. The inscription is genuine. "Yeshua bar Yehosef" is genuine. Unless you want to challenge it, then your logic is just your words with nothing to back up. Debunk it with proof then I shall reconsider.

Originally posted by eight bits

Luke is rarely considered to have been the base of the Synoptics.

I could live with an early Mark, even maybe 65 CE or so.

the fact that Luke hung around him a lot

I don't know that Luke hung around with Paul.

Well, the second half of Acts is recounting the ministry of Paul that the author actively participated in, as it is written in the first person narrative. In addition, Paul references Luke's being with him during his imprisonment in Rome in his letters to the Colossians and Philemon.

I don't know of anyone who disputes that Paul and Luke were closely connected, though I suppose there may be someone out there. We once again get back to the question of whether these books are reliable or not, and if they are not reliable, and the relationship of the author to Paul is fictitious, then discussion of any other aspect of them is largely moot.

Also, of course, I don't know that Paul was matyred. Or if he was, what the details were. Maybe he died in transit. Maybe he was "shot while trying to escape." Then again, maybe his appeal to the Emperor succeeded, and he died later of natural causes. I have no idea. I just know what the "traditional" story is, and that Luke declined to say.

We, of course, are limited by the mists of time, but it seems highly unlikely that Paul, who was pretty fervent in his religious zeal (both as Christian and Jew) would have been released by the Emperor and then turned his back on the church and never been heard from again. Possible, of course, but incredibly unlikely. He more likely would see it as an answer to his devout prayers and another sign that he was favoured by God, as he did after his first release. Similarly, if he died in custody, then the nature of his death would hardly be a cause for omission -- remember that martyrdom was extremely honourable for the church, so Paul dying in Roman hands, regardless of how, would be seen as an important testimony to his faith.

If the only two options are "Acts was written while Paul was still alive" or "Luke didn't think it important to document the death of his mentor and friend", I'm leaning toward the first.

You can't really be surprised that I don't think those are the only two options.

Perhaps not, but, given the relationship of Luke and Paul, the fact that Acts ends in a timeframe that is consistent with Paul still being alive, and the omission of the Siege of Jerusalem, which surely had a huge impact on the Jewish Christian community detailed in the first part of Acts, those are the two most likely.

Acts reads like an historical recollection, not an ongoing diary, so it is not a stretch to assume that the author wrote it all at once, relying on research from other sources for the first part (as in the Gospel of Luke,) and his own experiences for the second. Within this frame, the ending of the book seems less than climactic, more a matter of "that's where it ends" for whatever reason, the most likely being the time it was written.

Well, the second half of Acts is recounting the ministry of Paul that the author actively participated in, as it is written in the first person narrative.

The "we" passages of Acts are scattered and few:

16: 11-17
20: 5-15
21: 1-18
27 throughout
28 until sometime after Paul is settled in in Rome

Most of the time "we" spent in Paul's company is either at sea or in the long involuntary lay-over at Malta. "We" play no great role in any of Paul's adventures on land, even when "we" are together with Paul.

So, it isn't half the book. It isn't even half of the book from 16: 11 onward. It says not a word about what relationship "we" enjoyed with Paul. It says nothing about how old "we" were when any of this happened.

And, oh yes, there are scholars who think that it is a literary device, pure and simple. We, I mean you and I, can have a swearing contest about that, if you'd like .

Anyway, let's take it at face value. There is nothing there that excludes a twenty years older Luke salting his narrative with the few times his youthful path might have crossed a great man's. But those long verbatim speeches? I sure hope Luke has a source for them.

Finally, there is nothing that says Luke stayed in Rome for any appreciable part of the two years whose summary concludes the book,

Acts 28: 30-31

[Paul] remained for two full years in his lodgings. He received all who came to him, and with complete assurance and without hindrance he proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is nothing that excludes that Acts ends there because there was nothing else to say about Paul. No martyrdom, just death by natural causes, maybe waiting for the Emperor who had other things to do for two years. If so, then indeed, in Roman custody, as in "house arrest." As in if he died then, it was in his own bed, an odd venue for martyrdom.

There is also nothing that excludes that Acts ends there because Luke didn't know the story after that. Nor anything about the "we" passages that even suggests that Luke would be especially well-placed to find out.

In addition, Paul references Luke's being with him during his imprisonment in Rome in his letters to the Colossians and Philemon.

The authorship of Colossians is disputed. 2 Timothy, which has a Luke with Paul at 4:11, is also disputed.

www.religioustolerance.org...

Philemon says, at verse 23 and 24:

Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, as well as Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my co-workers.

That's it. Luke is one name in a list of names. Not a lot to go on. Nothing that changes anything I wrote based on Acts, even if it is the same Luke, which maybe it isn't.

We, of course, are limited by the mists of time, but it seems highly unlikely that Paul, who was pretty fervent in his religious zeal (both as Christian and Jew) would have been released by the Emperor and then turned his back on the church and never been heard from again.

He wouldn't be heard from again if he died. We seem to be in agreement that he did, not all that long after the final verse of Acts. Mostly, we're in doubt about how he died, whether he might have been too ill to travel before he died, etc.

Chronic illness or death by natural causes may be many things, but incredibly unlikely isn't one of them. Paul was old and high-mileage.

There isn't even a mystery unless you assume that the unsourced tradition about Paul's beheading is true, and so therefore Luke omitted something.

No beheading = nothing to explain.

No evidence for that beheading = no evidence that there's anything to explain.

reply to post by eight bits


All good points, though it all comes down to the uncertainty of these sorts of things after 2000 years, passing through 2-3 translations, and the application of scholarship analysis that may or may not be accurate or unbiased.

The authorship of Colossians is disputed.

Even on the page that you referenced, "disputed" doesn't mean much more than some scholars saying "probably written by Paul" as opposed to "written by Paul".

Within the argument, the cloudy nature of the matter results in one taking a side or another largely based on their bias. For me, I'll side with the Two-Gospel hypothesis and early dating, for the skeptic, the Two-Source hypothesis with its late dating is indicated. I suppose it might be interesting to assume early dating and try to work skepticism into it, but I'll leave that for the OP to muddle through.

I came across this quote on the plane Monday, and like it a lot.

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.

-- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Which is not to say that, just because Justin Martyr said something 1900 years ago, he's right, but neither is he wrong, merely because he isn't here to defend himself. That it was right and proper for him then, to me, indicates that there is some small amount of reason to believe that it is right and proper for me today.

Personally I don't care if Jesus existed, it is the story that has value. There is no way of proving he existed, so why bother?

Originally posted by earthdude
Personally I don't care if Jesus existed, it is the story that has value. There is no way of proving he existed, so why bother?

Because if Jesus didn't exist, then the story has no value. I'd even say that it has negative value.

CI think I quoted this pages ago. Clement of Rome speaks of Paul's death by martyrdom (generally assumed to be c. 95-96AD, though 70AD is increasingly being accepted too, with second-century claims countering this) in Chap. 5. Clement quite possibly knew Paul and Peter personally (Tertullian, in c.199AD, ascribes his ordination to Peter):

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

earlychristianwritings.com...

This is farily decent affirmation of martyrdom (the "but let us not dwell..." intro refers to his preceding discussion of OT figures persecuted for their faith). It is possible that Clement is merely recounting tradition even at this early stage, rather than passing on fact known personally to him however.

Rob.

Originally posted by d60944
CI think I quoted this pages ago. Clement of Rome speaks of Paul's death by martyrdom (generally assumed to be c. 95-96AD, though 70AD is increasingly being accepted too, with second-century claims countering this)

Where are you coming up with those dates? It's generally NOT assumed to be that late, as it would make Paul about 100 years old!

Around 67AD is a more accurate date, and I've not seen anything to indicate otherwise. It is possible, of course, that the Romans took away Paul's pen and paper, or he just arbitrarily decided to stop writing epistles, but his death in the mid 60s is a more obvious explanation for his lack of output.

Originally posted by theonlyrusty
Kap,

What a great thread.
It has made me send snippets to all of my brainwashed family of bible beating believers to just get them to look at the "possibility" that they may be incorrect with their outlook on history.

Gary Habermas called me a few days ago. He's the world's leading authority on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He stated that all New Testament Scholars, even critical scholars and current scholars allow Paul the Apostle meeting Jesus.

reply to post by texastig


Which scholars? Where? Which planet or galaxy?

And Benny Hinn, and Phelps, and Pat Robertson are not now being considered scholars, right?

Originally posted by Baloney
reply to post by texastig

 

Which scholars? Where? Which planet or galaxy?
And Benny Hinn, and Phelps, and Pat Robertson are not now being considered scholars, right?

Umm, everyone knows that Benny Hinn, Phelps and Pat Robertson aren't scholars except for you I guess.

Hmm. I hadn't thought of the two-source hypothesis as a sceptical position.

I am a sceptic and I don't like two-source. How could anybody lose Q? So, for that reason alone, I don't think there was a Q to lose.

The sceptic, or at least someone whom I would think of as a sceptic, doesn't really have a "synoptic problem." Not the same one as a believer's, anyway. There's an indsiputable literary dependence among three books, only one of which says why it was written.

That's a puzzle whose pieces fit together lots of ways.

So, two-gospel is OK with me. I don't know why Matthew was written, but it's quite the omnium gatherum. I could see Luke "cleaning up" Matthew, and then Mark being written... why?

Apart from being unsure why anybody would bother to write Mark under those terms, another problem I see is that Luke says that

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us,...

Many suggests more than one, and the literary opposition between the compilers and the eyewitensses suggests that writing is a second generation activity. That Luke himself is third generation is not excluded.

Regardless, I attribute late dating to the changing needs and interests of the Christian community. Jesus was coming back in the lifetimes of the first generation of Christians. Or so they believed, and so they may well have also believed that there wasn't much point in writing things down.

Even to say "late dating" makes me laugh a little. Mark in 65 and Luke in 80 doesn't seem late to me. Some "sceptics" like a Second Century Luke.

You and I are what? 15 years apart on Luke? Meh; hardly worth mentioning.

Well, admittedly, it's a bad fifteen years, between the Temple, and how Paul died. But still close for such a contentious matter, after so long, with so little hard evidence to go on.

reply to post by texastig


From the quality and fashion of your posts, I honestly figured that YOU had assumed that they were!!

You really do not think that I thought those clowns were anything but CHUMPS, right?

And why not just answer my question instead of mentioning something that you KNEW I didn't mean to express!! Stop trying to avoid the question please.

*SIGH*



[edit on 11-8-2010 by Baloney]

Originally posted by Baloney
reply to post by texastig

 

From the quality and fashion of your posts, I honestly figured that YOU had assumed that they were!!

You really do not think that I thought those clowns were anything but CHUMPS, right?

And why not just answer my question instead of mentioning something that you KNEW I didn't mean to express!! Stop trying to avoid the question please.

*SIGH*
[edit on 11-8-2010 by Baloney]

First off, I have no idea who you are.
I can't take you seriously. If you would have been serious in the first place and not mentioned those preachers then we could of had a respectable conversation.
Would you like to start over again?

[edit on 8/11/2010 by texastig]

As a godless, murdering zionist jew I have met Him...

I was a career soldier in the british army and I.D.F... I have done many questionable things in service of my country(s)...

My family have suffered greatly as a result of my choices.. I was a government sponsored psycho... I hope you get the picture...

Then one day i was struck with a vision.. I was in cave., There was clothes strewn all across the floor,. They was shiny white... Glowing... On the wall of the cave was a great wooden cross... As i looked at my surroundings i noticed a soldier laying on the floor barely breathing, I looked around and there was Yeshua.. He looked like a king, I instinctivy knew who he was.. I was overcome as a jew... I knelt before Him and kissed His feet, which were scarred with holes..
He looked at me the soldier laying virtually lifeless on the floor of the cave., I sked Him if He would heal him., He said nothing except to rech down and lift the soldier (me.)
on His shoulder then carried me out of the cave...
Outside the cave was a fast flowing river of which He proceeded to carry me on His shoulder up stream against the current... Then I woke feeling full of the Holy Spirit.

It was wonderfull.... God was showing me that He would carry me..

That is when i became a christian. A jewish believer in Yeshua,

You may think me nuts but that is my subjective experience and it changed me forever...

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Yissachar1]

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Yissachar1]

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Yissachar1]

Originally posted by eight bits
Hmm. I hadn't thought of the two-source hypothesis as a sceptical position.

I am a sceptic and I don't like two-source. How could anybody lose Q? So, for that reason alone, I don't think there was a Q to lose.

The sceptic, or at least someone whom I would think of as a sceptic, doesn't really have a "synoptic problem." Not the same one as a believer's, anyway. There's an indsiputable literary dependence among three books, only one of which says why it was written.

That's a puzzle whose pieces fit together lots of ways.

So, two-gospel is OK with me. I don't know why Matthew was written, but it's quite the omnium gatherum. I could see Luke "cleaning up" Matthew, and then Mark being written... why?

Apart from being unsure why anybody would bother to write Mark under those terms, another problem I see is that Luke says that

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us,...

Many suggests more than one, and the literary opposition between the compilers and the eyewitensses suggests that writing is a second generation activity. That Luke himself is third generation is not excluded.

Regardless, I attribute late dating to the changing needs and interests of the Christian community. Jesus was coming back in the lifetimes of the first generation of Christians. Or so they believed, and so they may well have also believed that there wasn't much point in writing things down.

Yeah, I think that you're spot on with this. I've always viewed the Gospels, Luke in particular, as being an issue of "hey, these Apostle guys are dying, Christ isn't here, I think that someone should write this stuff down." We tend to put things into our own times and mindsets, so it seems a little odd that no one would have sat down and done this ten minutes after Christ reappeared following the resurrection, but given the likelihood that few of the Apostles were literate, and there were no means of easily copying and distributing large texts, along with the belief, as you said, that the new Age was just around the corner, it probably wasn't a high priority item.

Personally, I've viewed Matthew as a piece directed to a Jewish audience, Luke a bit more toward the Gentiles, John a wholly separate thing, and Mark as an abbreviated Gospel, whatever the reason for that might have been. To me, it seems feasible that Matthew the tax collector wrote that Gospel, as he would be the most likely Apostle to be literate, he was Jewish and (traditionally) ministered to the Jewish, not Gentile, Christians for the majority of his time, but, again, nothing hinges on it.

So, my beliefs, in general accordance with Two-Gospel, Matthew wrote a Gospel, which may or may not be the same thing as what we have today (Jerome claimed that Matthew had written a "Gospel of the Hebrews", in that language, for the Jewish Christians, and which has been lost) in the decade of the 40sAD, to be used in his ministry.

The Gospel of John was written by the "disciple beloved by Christ", which I take to be the Apostle John, probably in the 60s. Luke was written about the same time, using Matthew's Gospel (either one) and supplemented with other material Luke gathered. Mark... well, who knows. I've seen a variety of explanations for Mark, don't know that I'd favour one over another.