Azeus said
Bethany said
“Josephus does not offer an attestation of a historical Jesus.”
Wait, what? He seems to have been under the strong impression that Jesus had a brother, which is hard for imaginary people to do.
Yes, that is my opinion of course. Josephus was writing about the event concerning James some 35 years after it happened. He most certainly had no first hand knowledge of the event. Festus was appointed around 59CE. Josephus wrote Antiquities around 94CE. I use the word attestation in the sense of evidence, testament, but most directly as witness. He does not offer any of these but rather does confirm that there were people who believed Jesus was Christ at that time. There are people who believe Joesph Smith had a revelation, that Ron Hubbard discovered Thetans, and that there was a shot from the grassy knoll. If I write that down as part of history, it does not make any of it true. What would be true is there are people who believe it. Thankx for your comment.
I think one has to assume that Josephus had access to excellent sources, both Roman and Jewish. The former from his sheltered position within the inner circles of the court of the Vespasian dynasty and the latter from his background in Jerusalem. I think many ancient historians have written their works by collecting sources , long after the events. Josephus used f.inst. the works of Nicolaus of Damascus who was an eyewitness to the last years of the court of Herod the Great. This historian, in turn, used even earlier sources. What matters is an evaluation of their explicit and implied sources.
Beside Josephus (accepting that the longer testimony is dubious, and the shorter very likely authentic), what is wrong with Paul as a witness? He informs us that his community members had the right to marry since the brothers of the Lord was married. This information is mentioned in passing, with no theological bias. He strongly believed in a crucified Jesus in the flesh, and says that his views on Christ are basically the same as propounded by the other leaders, and he is quoting creeds that he has inherited, and not made up himself. He came to these conclusions a very few years after the events, and says that he has relatives who converted before him.
Excellent points. I have to say the most obvious thing that casts doubt on a historical Jesus by using Josephus is, Josephus. He was a Jew. Stayed a Jew. If he believed the Christ had come or the story that he did had any credibility, why did he stay Jewish. Regardless of his sources, they did not seem to have enough credibility with him as a historian, scholar, and Jew to write more than a few sentences in passing. You seem to be well aware of the debate over the authenticity of his writings on the subject so I will forego that discussion. Origen states that Josephus has not mentioned Christ. This casts further doubt on the authenticity of any mention of Jesus by Josephus.
Paul…now this topic could take a while. First, what are your historic references for him. Second, with nearly half of his writings being in question as to their authenticity, it casts doubt on much of what was said. I concede that 1 Corinthians is not one of the disputed writings. As Baur pointed out there appears to be many different Pauls. It is widely accepted that there are four probable types of Paul. We know that many people were claiming to be Paul from the warning ‘he’ gave about false letters being circulated in ‘his’ name. Oddly the letter that mentions this is one of the disputed writings. We only have a Paul that historically becomes vague and nebulous. At best his writings are an amalgamation of promulgation. I concede that there was most likely a ‘Saul of Tarsus’ in some physical sense. I am sure you are aware of the fact that he never met Jesus. He has a vision, of which we know little, goes into the desert for 3 years, meets Peter and James, preaches for over a decade and returns again to visit Peter and James. The man travels extensively, flees continuously, has more visions, meets many historical figures, (Gamaliel,Felix,Festus, etc) and ends up in Rome. There is a big enough uproar over the 3 years Jesus roamed around and why no one who could write seemed to take notice at the time. Paul does this for decades and once again, no person that could write seems to take notice. Does Philo talk about him, Josephus, Gamaliel, of course not, neither does anyone else.
We have thousands of writings from over a hundred contemporaries of the Jesus figure, yet not one word from any of them. I can go on with this point but I think it has been made. In order to accept that there was a single person as a Jesus figure, one must believe the following happened: he was born, matured, preached, was crucified, and was forgotten about for several decades. One of the problems that those of us with disbelief of a historical Jesus face is, the label ‘Mythicist’ gets deployed. The story of King Arthur and its development was derived from stories of two separate people living in two different countries. The Jesus story seems to emerge into history after the death of Philo and before the death of Josephus. The assertion that an oral tradition existed before that is purely assumptive. Could it have, most certainly. Could Mark be a redaction of another text, most certainly. Could have Philo or Josephus made the whole thing up, doubtful but not impossible. I certainly do not believe a bush burst into flames and wrote on a rock, or any other supernatural event has ever happened. I disbelieve a single person called ‘Jesus’ as depicted in scripture ever lived, he was not the son of himself, or the brother to anyone. I enjoyed your post very much. Best regards.
” I have to say the most obvious thing that casts doubt on a historical Jesus by using Josephus is, Josephus. He was a Jew. Stayed a Jew. If he believed the Christ had come or the story that he did had any credibility, why did he stay Jewish.”
Because he didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah or the Son of God? That doesn’t have anything to do with a belief that Jesus existed. I don’t follow Pat Robertson because I don’t believe he speaks for God, but I still believe he exists.
” Origen states that Josephus has not mentioned Christ. “
Origen said that Josephus didn’t believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah. He does, however, reference the passage of Josephus referring to James as the brother of Jesus.
“We have thousands of writings from over a hundred contemporaries of the Jesus figure, yet not one word from any of them.”
If you’re referring to the whole “126 authors who don’t mention Jesus” thing, I gather that when you leave out the ones who DO mention Jesus, you end up with a sum total of about 5 pages that talk about 1st century Palestine.
e.g. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Azeus said
Excellent points. I have to say the most obvious thing that casts doubt on a historical Jesus by using Josephus is, Josephus. He was a Jew. Stayed a Jew. If he believed the Christ had come or the story that he did had any credibility, why did he stay Jewish. Regardless of his sources, they did not seem to have enough credibility with him as a historian, scholar, and Jew to write more than a few sentences in passing. You seem to be well aware of the debate over the authenticity of his writings on the subject so I will forego that discussion. Origen states that Josephus has not mentioned Christ. This casts further doubt on the authenticity of any mention of Jesus by Josephus.Paul…now this topic could take a while. First, what are your historic references for him. Second, with nearly half of his writings being in question as to their authenticity, it casts doubt on much of what was said. I concede that 1 Corinthians is not one of the disputed writings. As Baur pointed out there appears to be many different Pauls. It is widely accepted that there are four probable types of Paul. We know that many people were claiming to be Paul from the warning ‘he’ gave about false letters being circulated in ‘his’ name. Oddly the letter that mentions this is one of the disputed writings. We only have a Paul that historically becomes vague and nebulous. At best his writings are an amalgamation of promulgation. I concede that there was most likely a ‘Saul of Tarsus’ in some physical sense. I am sure you are aware of the fact that he never met Jesus. He has a vision, of which we know little, goes into the desert for 3 years, meets Peter and James, preaches for over a decade and returns again to visit Peter and James. The man travels extensively, flees continuously, has more visions, meets many historical figures, (Gamaliel,Felix,Festus, etc) and ends up in Rome. There is a big enough uproar over the 3 years Jesus roamed around and why no one who could write seemed to take notice at the time. Paul does this for decades and once again, no person that could write seems to take notice. Does Philo talk about him, Josephus, Gamaliel, of course not, neither does anyone else.
We have thousands of writings from over a hundred contemporaries of the Jesus figure, yet not one word from any of them. I can go on with this point but I think it has been made. In order to accept that there was a single person as a Jesus figure, one must believe the following happened: he was born, matured, preached, was crucified, and was forgotten about for several decades. One of the problems that those of us with disbelief of a historical Jesus face is, the label ‘Mythicist’ gets deployed. The story of King Arthur and its development was derived from stories of two separate people living in two different countries. The Jesus story seems to emerge into history after the death of Philo and before the death of Josephus. The assertion that an oral tradition existed before that is purely assumptive. Could it have, most certainly. Could Mark be a redaction of another text, most certainly. Could have Philo or Josephus made the whole thing up, doubtful but not impossible. I certainly do not believe a bush burst into flames and wrote on a rock, or any other supernatural event has ever happened. I disbelieve a single person called ‘Jesus’ as depicted in scripture ever lived, he was not the son of himself, or the brother to anyone. I enjoyed your post very much. Best regards.
The problem you and other mythicists have is that you’re looking back through two thousand years of Christian tradition and assuming that someone who could inspire all that must have made a big splash in his own day. Jesus was a obscure nobody in a backwater at the a** end of the Roman Empire. Maybe he had a hundred followers. His ministry could have lasted as little as one year or as long as three. He taught the coming Kingdom of God. He was crucified. The only reason we know about him is because his followers founded a major world religion. Hindsight is 20/20.
You are surprised that Philo didn’t know about him but why would he? How many ministers do you know within a hundred miles of where you live with congregations of a hundred or less? In this age of instant communication!
If Josephus had been a Christian that would have undermined his testimony not strengthened it. The fact that he mentions Jesus only casually and is not a convert strengthens his testimony not weakens it.
No reputable scholar denies the historicity of Paul. Why? Go ask Richard Carrier. He wrote an excellent article about it aimed at his fellow mythicists doing just what you are doing. The short version…we have Paul’s actual writings. In which Paul says he had visions. He never claims to have met Jesus in the flesh. He did however meet Jesus’ chief disciples and Jesus’ brother James.
Sure there are historical problems in the Jesus tradition. Prof Ehrman among others has spent his entire career laying these out. But the idea that Jesus didn’t exist because we don’t have his thumbprint seriously betrays a lack of understanding about how the study of history works. Jesus wasn’t special. He was a historical figure like any other in ancient history. And the problems with the study of all ancient history are the same.
Azeus said
…Paul…now this topic could take a while. First, what are your historic references for him. Second, with nearly half of his writings being in question as to their authenticity, it casts doubt on much of what was said. I concede that 1 Corinthians is not one of the disputed writings. As Baur pointed out there appears to be many different Pauls. It is widely accepted that there are four probable types of Paul. We know that many people were claiming to be Paul from the warning ‘he’ gave about false letters being circulated in ‘his’ name. Oddly the letter that mentions this is one of the disputed writings. We only have a Paul that historically becomes vague and nebulous. At best his writings are an amalgamation of promulgation. I concede that there was most likely a ‘Saul of Tarsus’ in some physical sense. I am sure you are aware of the fact that he never met Jesus. He has a vision, of which we know little, goes into the desert for 3 years, meets Peter and James, preaches for over a decade and returns again to visit Peter and James. The man travels extensively, flees continuously, has more visions, meets many historical figures, (Gamaliel,Felix,Festus, etc) and ends up in Rome. There is a big enough uproar over the 3 years Jesus roamed around and why no one who could write seemed to take notice at the time. Paul does this for decades and once again, no person that could write seems to take notice. Does Philo talk about him, Josephus, Gamaliel, of course not, neither does anyone else.
We have thousands of writings from over a hundred contemporaries of the Jesus figure, yet not one word from any of them. I can go on with this point but I think it has been made. In order to accept that there was a single person as a Jesus figure, one must believe the following happened: he was born, matured, preached, was crucified, and was forgotten about for several decades. One of the problems that those of us with disbelief of a historical Jesus face is, the label ‘Mythicist’ gets deployed. The story of King Arthur and its development was derived from stories of two separate people living in two different countries. The Jesus story seems to emerge into history after the death of Philo and before the death of Josephus. The assertion that an oral tradition existed before that is purely assumptive. Could it have, most certainly. Could Mark be a redaction of another text, most certainly. Could have Philo or Josephus made the whole thing up, doubtful but not impossible. I certainly do not believe a bush burst into flames and wrote on a rock, or any other supernatural event has ever happened. I disbelieve a single person called ‘Jesus’ as depicted in scripture ever lived, he was not the son of himself, or the brother to anyone. I enjoyed your post very much. Best regards.
My point is further that one would not expect important ancient historians and key political players to be eyewitnesses to unimportant events in remote parts of the Roman empire. What is expected in such cases is a tendency to collect sources if such events later develop into something more serious. That’s why Josephus mentions John the Baptist, because he became an issue in the eyes of the rulers. If he he had stayed in the remote wilderness as a harmless eremite, he wouldn’t have been mentioned at all. It is exactly the same matter with Josephus on the execution of James. On the other hand, among key political players one would expect more direct literary evidence, like Julius Caesar’s writings on his Gallic Wars. Despite this, there are numerous holes in our knowledge about important ancient events among key players. Reports were not produced, and reports written were lost. The question why some writers could, but did not write on some topics is argument from silence. We shall never know how Philo selected his topics, or if relevant works did not survive.
My statements on Paul are based on his undisputed letters, and undisputed passages. He was an eyewitness to the smoking gun, but not the shot itself. But that is enough, and especially when put together with other sources. Therefor, one of the key strategies of Jesus mythicists is to offer radical (and often bizarre) interpretations of these key verses, and possibly judge them to be interpolations. It also follows from Paul’s writings that various “gospels” (in the oral sense) got spread very early, in part in opposition to Paul or opposed by Paul, or beside Paul. So the early onset of oral traditions cannot be denied. It can also be demonstrated that these traditions lived on independently of the written Gospels well into the second century.
cheers,
g.
Hundreds and hundreds of people likely wrote about him as he visited towns throughout his public ministry. He was Jesus Christ Superstar. No one has done the things he did before or after his sojourn on this blue orb. People were amazed by him. In awe, frightened, amazed, blown away, healed, raised from the dead, fed, drank his miraculous wine; his fame spread like wildfire. That’s why they killed him. They feared he would tale over.
Until we invent a time machine i don’t think we’ll ever know the truth with 100% certainty. What is to stop somebody with an agenda getting hold of the writings of Josephus for example, and completely re-writing it and here and there inserting their own false history. We know this was done with the interpolation of his Antiquities of the Jews, with that now famous paragraph about Jesus .. “There was around this time, a doer of wonderful deeds” etc. To the average reader it looks pretty genuine as if he was writing facts about Jesus, but historical scholars smelt a rat here, it didn’t fit in with Josephus’s normal writing style. It’s hard to look at something with a true critical eye when what you are reading fits in perfectly with what you want to believe.. this is where confirmation bias comes into play. Somebody like William Lane Craig is able to build a pretty strong case for Jesus on a few scraps of erroneous information.
Bethany said
” I have to say the most obvious thing that casts doubt on a historical Jesus by using Josephus is, Josephus. He was a Jew. Stayed a Jew. If he believed the Christ had come or the story that he did had any credibility, why did he stay Jewish.”
Because he didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah or the Son of God? That doesn’t have anything to do with a belief that Jesus existed. I don’t follow Pat Robertson because I don’t believe he speaks for God, but I still believe he exists.
” Origen states that Josephus has not mentioned Christ. “
Origen said that Josephus didn’t believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah. He does, however, reference the passage of Josephus referring to James as the brother of Jesus.
“We have thousands of writings from over a hundred contemporaries of the Jesus figure, yet not one word from any of them.”
If you’re referring to the whole “126 authors who don’t mention Jesus” thing, I gather that when you leave out the ones who DO mention Jesus, you end up with a sum total of about 5 pages that talk about 1st century Palestine.
e.g. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Thank you for the link. It helps me understand where you are getting information from. I am familiar with Bob Price, Richard Carrier, John Crosson, and many more. I am also familiar with Lee Strobal, James White, C S Lewis, William Craig and many more. The problem with these polarizing writers is they tend to overstate their positions. Things like ‘you end up with a sum total of about 5 pages…’ Philo alone has thousands of pages available for you to read. Christian Apologists and Jesus Mythicists all have their agenda from the onset. There are over a hundred writers that we know of contemporary to the Jesus figure, that is a fact. Apologists make excuses to defend the faith, it is their foundational purpose. Mythicists tend to over state things just as well, I can tell you there are many names on that link I would not have included. Apologists down play Jesus as a minor figure in his time when it is convenient, and over state his historical reality just a conveniently.
James offers both sides equal play. Jerome used him to deny Jesus had siblings. This doctrine is still part of many denominational beliefs. The Gospel of James depicts him without siblings and Mary as a perpetual virgin. I am fully aware of the many references to James having family in other writings. If I had a wish, it would be to see a copy of the source document of Mark, or a Proto Mark. My thoughts are that Mark is a redaction of a previously existing story. The oldest fragment we have is of the newest Gospel written. Justin Martyr used James as one of his sources. Scholars have debated for ever which writings have priority over the other. Although their is consensus on most of them the matter is hardly written in stone.
I have no dog in the fight. I would be equally excited if we discover something that proves Jesus did exist as a real person as I would be if something emerged that proved he was not. I do not believe he was. That gets me labeled as a Mythicist as if I am chanting some Atheist mantra. Neither do I partake of the purple Kool Aid passed out by Apologists.
Bart has made his opinion on the matter very clear. In a fairly recent talk he described those that do not believe Jesus was a historical figure as ‘Foolish’. I take no offense to it. I have come to this conclusion through my own journey. It very well may turn out that I am wrong on the matter. I am not encumbered by a faith in supernatural things in either event.
Herod was excited about meeting him. If that statement from the N.T. was not true, the person who wrote it may have faced execution.
Obviously, his disciples wrote a great deal about him (often sacrificing their lives in doing so) and what they describe became the most influential body of work in the development of Western civilization, according to Dr Bart.
Stephen said
Azeus said
Excellent points. I have to say the most obvious thing that casts doubt on a historical Jesus by using Josephus is, Josephus. He was a Jew. Stayed a Jew. If he believed the Christ had come or the story that he did had any credibility, why did he stay Jewish. Regardless of his sources, they did not seem to have enough credibility with him as a historian, scholar, and Jew to write more than a few sentences in passing. You seem to be well aware of the debate over the authenticity of his writings on the subject so I will forego that discussion. Origen states that Josephus has not mentioned Christ. This casts further doubt on the authenticity of any mention of Jesus by Josephus.Paul…now this topic could take a while. First, what are your historic references for him. Second, with nearly half of his writings being in question as to their authenticity, it casts doubt on much of what was said. I concede that 1 Corinthians is not one of the disputed writings. As Baur pointed out there appears to be many different Pauls. It is widely accepted that there are four probable types of Paul. We know that many people were claiming to be Paul from the warning ‘he’ gave about false letters being circulated in ‘his’ name. Oddly the letter that mentions this is one of the disputed writings. We only have a Paul that historically becomes vague and nebulous. At best his writings are an amalgamation of promulgation. I concede that there was most likely a ‘Saul of Tarsus’ in some physical sense. I am sure you are aware of the fact that he never met Jesus. He has a vision, of which we know little, goes into the desert for 3 years, meets Peter and James, preaches for over a decade and returns again to visit Peter and James. The man travels extensively, flees continuously, has more visions, meets many historical figures, (Gamaliel,Felix,Festus, etc) and ends up in Rome. There is a big enough uproar over the 3 years Jesus roamed around and why no one who could write seemed to take notice at the time. Paul does this for decades and once again, no person that could write seems to take notice. Does Philo talk about him, Josephus, Gamaliel, of course not, neither does anyone else.
We have thousands of writings from over a hundred contemporaries of the Jesus figure, yet not one word from any of them. I can go on with this point but I think it has been made. In order to accept that there was a single person as a Jesus figure, one must believe the following happened: he was born, matured, preached, was crucified, and was forgotten about for several decades. One of the problems that those of us with disbelief of a historical Jesus face is, the label ‘Mythicist’ gets deployed. The story of King Arthur and its development was derived from stories of two separate people living in two different countries. The Jesus story seems to emerge into history after the death of Philo and before the death of Josephus. The assertion that an oral tradition existed before that is purely assumptive. Could it have, most certainly. Could Mark be a redaction of another text, most certainly. Could have Philo or Josephus made the whole thing up, doubtful but not impossible. I certainly do not believe a bush burst into flames and wrote on a rock, or any other supernatural event has ever happened. I disbelieve a single person called ‘Jesus’ as depicted in scripture ever lived, he was not the son of himself, or the brother to anyone. I enjoyed your post very much. Best regards.
The problem you and other mythicists have is that you’re looking back through two thousand years of Christian tradition and assuming that someone who could inspire all that must have made a big splash in his own day. Jesus was a obscure nobody in a backwater at the a** end of the Roman Empire. Maybe he had a hundred followers. His ministry could have lasted as little as one year or as long as three. He taught the coming Kingdom of God. He was crucified. The only reason we know about him is because his followers founded a major world religion. Hindsight is 20/20.
You are surprised that Philo didn’t know about him but why would he? How many ministers do you know within a hundred miles of where you live with congregations of a hundred or less? In this age of instant communication!
If Josephus had been a Christian that would have undermined his testimony not strengthened it. The fact that he mentions Jesus only casually and is not a convert strengthens his testimony not weakens it.
No reputable scholar denies the historicity of Paul. Why? Go ask Richard Carrier. He wrote an excellent article about it aimed at his fellow mythicists doing just what you are doing. The short version…we have Paul’s actual writings. In which Paul says he had visions. He never claims to have met Jesus in the flesh. He did however meet Jesus’ chief disciples and Jesus’ brother James.
Sure there are historical problems in the Jesus tradition. Prof Ehrman among others has spent his entire career laying these out. But the idea that Jesus didn’t exist because we don’t have his thumbprint seriously betrays a lack of understanding about how the study of history works. Jesus wasn’t special. He was a historical figure like any other in ancient history. And the problems with the study of all ancient history are the same.
Philo was around for at least two decades after the Jesus ministry started. He most certainly would have known about the coming of a Christ. He was expecting that very thing to happen. He specifically states that it did not.
I make no claim that a ‘Paul’ did not exist. I do state the fact that there were many people writing as if they were Paul. There were obviously many ‘Pauls’ that existed. I take anything someone who has visions says with a lot of skepticism. He has his first vision, goes into the desert for years, comes out of the desert and goes directly to Jerusalem to talk with Peter and James. I do not believe in supernatural events. Who then had Paul been talking to? He had to get the names and locations of Peter and James from someone. It is not reasonable to claim that while roaming around the desert he came across people that knew all about Jesus and his followers locations but it is completely acceptable to believe that Philo never heard of them. You simply cant have it both ways. Its not that I don’t believe a ‘Saul of Tarsus’ existed in some physical sense, it that I do not believe his story to be historically plausible.
I do not claim that it was all made up. I do not know how the Jesus story started and neither does anyone else. We ponder, research, and make conjectures based on our information. There are writings that refer to James as the Christ. Other writings attributed to James that state Jesus was simply a teacher. Almost every aspect of the Jesus character has an opposing view stated somewhere.
I have my own theories and wish I could write as effectively as Bart does. Assuming that he is the only one that has been to Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Greece, Turkey, Rome, Sicily, Spain, France, England, Germany would be an error on your part. Assuming he is the only one that can read ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Latin would also be a mistake. I also can read Russian, Ukrainian, and German.
I have collected a library over the years that I am proud of. I too have studied this topic for the better part of my life. There is one principal by which if you live it will never fail to keep you in everlasting ignorance. That principal is contempt prior to investigation. Jesus may very well turn out to be a singular historical figure. I do not believe he was.
Bethany said
I believe that to be a pretty standard scholarly viewpoint: that oral traditions regarding Jesus were later recorded by the writers of the Gospels.
We need to be careful not to conflate the claim that there was a historical individual Jesus of Nazareth with later claims that he was the son of God or God incarnate — the former in no way depends upon the latter
From a historical perspective Jesus not writing any books makes perfect sense: he probably couldn’t write, he was spreading his message to people who mostly couldn’t read, he seems to have taught that the kingdom of God would be coming in the lifetime of his hearers, so it’s not like there was a reason to spread the message to future generations.
he seems to have taught that the kingdom of God would be coming in the lifetime of his hearers
“He seems to have taught.” Hmm. Why do you say that? “seems to” ?
prestonp said
Hundreds and hundreds of people likely wrote about him as he visited towns throughout his public ministry. He was Jesus Christ Superstar. No one has done the things he did before or after his sojourn on this blue orb. People were amazed by him. In awe, frightened, amazed, blown away, healed, raised from the dead, fed, drank his miraculous wine; his fame spread like wildfire. That’s why they killed him. They feared he would tale over.
A number of people with intimate knowledge of him wrote a great deal and what they communicated profoundly changed the world for the next 2,000 years. As Dr Bart has said, “The assertion that Jesus is God is arguably the single most important development in Western civilization.” That’s quite a statement! He’s on target. I would add that the assertion that Jesus is God is only part of the equation. From historical records the evidence is clear: the assertions proved to be true.
mary said
Could Jesus write? Read? it seems highly unlikely that he could have. If he studied and or learned in synagogues he only new about the Jewish teachings from hearing them.I have just started the books I have had for quite awhile that cover the earlier time period concerning that time and writings. You would think he would have written something if he was a real person and able to write.
You’d also think he could read and write if he was the omniscient infallible one and only God Almighty…
So if you think, some people at the time of Jesus and shortly thereafter did believe there was a man called Jesus; This Jesus, who may have been at least knowledgable and of some interest, had abilities, good speaker, and was special in some way; This Jesus learned from the Jewish Torah either orally or from writings of the Jewish Torah in the synagog. But the Jews for the most part do not think he existed or was a prophet like many others of his time. It seems strange that The writings of others except for one that Bart has written about would not have mentioned much more about him
If he was anything more than a prophet.
bonnie43uk said
Yes, good points. I’d always assumed there would be lots of available documents concerning Pontius Pilate and was more than a little surprised that we dont really know that much about him. Maybe we simply take things for granted.It does seem strange to me that Jesus supposedly came down to earth with this message for all of humanity with all it’s ramifications of the death and resurrection. And the way he chooses to spread his message is by having people write about him decades after he’s gone ( getting facts wrong in the process), and then taking hundreds upon hundreds of years to make it’s way around the globe, in many cases forcing the indigenous populations to accept Christianity or die ( in places like South America). Surely to goodness God could have found a more conducive method to get his message to us. How was the world any different the day after Jesus had been crucified?, people in other countries would not get to hear about Jesus’s sacrifice for us for getting on 2,000 years. The North American indians for example knew nothing about Christ for countless generations, they lived and died for generations blissfully unaware that a man had died for their sins well over a thousand years before. In that sense, it seems rather pointless. And when eventually, the white Christians did make it over to North America via Europe, they ended up simply wiping the indigenous population of Indians off the map.
I get what you are saying. I often thought “Why couldn’t God make it easier to believe in this Holy Trinity stuff?” I initially had a great difficulty in understanding why there was certain animosity between Christians and Jews when Jesus (his disciples) were Jews and believed in a great deal of traditional Jewish beliefs. I mean, in some sense, Christians should be thankful to Jews because without them, Christianity would not exist. I did crack up though when I found out that Mormons believe (according to their Book of Mormons) Native Indians were some lost tribe from Israel. I was thinking that since Native Indians were somewhat related genetically to Asians (I think this is true), that would make me (an Asian-American) a de facto Jewish. This thought cracked me up.
prestonp said
“Could Jesus write? Read? it seems highly unlikely that he could have. If he studied and or learned in synagogues he only new about the Jewish teachings from hearing them.” mary
Who do you think crafted the words spoken in John chapters 11 through 15? He or she was quite brilliant I think. No one has ever spoken like that before or since, that I have found.
Why don’t you enlighten us if you think otherwise? Jesus could have spoken these words rather than having written them down? Why do you think (if you do think so) that Jesus could read and write? I would not be surprised if he could since he must have been a very smart person. It also makes sense to me that since he thought the world was going to end soon, it didn’t make sense to him to record anything. I do get the sense though that what Jesus tried to do in his life was not the same thing that his disciples ended up doing. For example, I do not get the sense that Jesus was trying to convert non-Jews. Don’t know if that is a fair or reasonable statement or conclusion, but that’s what I think.
gmatthews said
People find coincidences in everything. It’s human nature to want to bring order from chaos. Look at the popular urban legend that tries to link the presidencies of Lincoln and Kennedy as if they had some supernatural connection. The list of comparisons between the two goes on and on and on, but hardly anyone stops to consider the infinite number of ways in which the two men were dissimilar.
Indeed from what I understand, many of those similarities are made up or at least don’t hold up under scrutiny. This would be a perfect example of Ehrman’s telephone explanation. People just love those excited coincidences.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)