firedragon
Veteran Member
The dating we use today is Anno Domini. This is the year 2021. And that's based on the birth of Jesus. Although if the correct birth year of Jesus is to be pursued, it should be as many confess, 2025. This shows one thing, and that is how much of importance this man, or man God has vested upon him.
Finding the real Jesus is not a path that suddenly emerged in the 20th century. Rather, since probably the beginning of all of this. As you all know there were many writings neglected as apocrypha in the Nag Hamadi findings. Oh the writings about Jesus are huge. Yet, who is the real Jesus?
Does the writing of Josephus that passingly mentions Jesus, the brother of James, they called the Messiah signify that there indeed was at least a man people had called the Messiah? Well, how about the well known forged advertisement for Jesus in Josephus and his antiquities when someone tried to insert the miracle worker attribute to Jesus? In order to construct the Jesus they want into history, did not these people actually cause harm by casting doubt when people found out that it was all false?
Some scholars who believe Jesus existed as the majority of them do, do believe that it is almost human creativity to try and construct the real life of Jesus Christ based on the theological writings. Vis a Vis, the New Testament. Some stories like the Pericope Adultarae which is a known interpolation into the Gospel of John have been the point of scrutiny for many theologians and apologists in their effort to make it a true story. Whoever inserted it first, may have taken this story from someone like Eusebius who mentions a woman of sin in a so called gospel hebrews that Papias spoke of in the early 2nd century. But this person tried this insertion too late. And some evangelical apologists use this as an argument. Then you get an argument about the protogospel of James where some people like like W. Petersen argue the Pericope Adultarae existed due to a phrase 16:2. Its not good enough and puts them as "hook or crook attempts". When people make such arguments to try and make a latter insertion valid it puts the authenticity at huge peril.
Critical scholars take the words of Josephus associating James with Jesus who they called the Messiah as the only historically available statement. Which has prompted some scholars like the unorthodox muslim Reza Aslan to take the approach of consulting many many scholars, their works, the recorded history of the Romans, the setting of the time and place and plug Jesus into that in order to figure out a Jesus that is historical. Now this Jesus would obviously contradict the Jesus of Christian Theology or as a matter of fact, any Jesus of any theology.
Jesus is known today by most as a carpenter. Was he? Tekton as anyone knows does not mean carpenter unless you add "wood" into the word. A Tekton of stone would be a stone worker. A Tekton of iron would be an iron worker. Which Jesus is the real Jesus?
While Judaism rejects Jesus, Islam embraces him as a prophet of God. A Messenger. The Quran is a 7th century document, thus being 7 centuries apart from Jesus as a historical document it can be argued that it is not valid. A curious case is the statement in this book that Jesus was not crucified nor killed by them as in the Jews but only made to appear as they did. The usual opposition to this is that "why would God make it appear as if they crucified him"?? Well, the text does not say that it was God who made it appear as such. So that's a cloven assumption. It also denies that the Jews killed him which means it could always be the Romans who did, and that's the position of scholars anyway, that it was the Romans who killed him for sedition.
There were many Christs in that era. Many people called themselves Christ. And many of them were killed by the Romans and their movements crushed. Yep, it was for sedition. Judas the Galilean, Hezekiah, Simon of Peraea, Menahem, Simon son of Kochba, Simonson of Giora, the Samaritan, Theudas, Athronges, etc. Thus, was Jesus a significant figure in comparison to everyone else at that time, or was he just one of them and nothing special?? Well it certainly seems like it because the "decadent" Josephus would make him a little significant if he was wouldn't he? Or did he subdue Jesus on purpose? Also if Jesus was not a significant character how in the world is he the only venerated Christ of the time, though he was also killed in the same manner like everyone else?
Who is the real Jesus?
Finding the real Jesus is not a path that suddenly emerged in the 20th century. Rather, since probably the beginning of all of this. As you all know there were many writings neglected as apocrypha in the Nag Hamadi findings. Oh the writings about Jesus are huge. Yet, who is the real Jesus?
Does the writing of Josephus that passingly mentions Jesus, the brother of James, they called the Messiah signify that there indeed was at least a man people had called the Messiah? Well, how about the well known forged advertisement for Jesus in Josephus and his antiquities when someone tried to insert the miracle worker attribute to Jesus? In order to construct the Jesus they want into history, did not these people actually cause harm by casting doubt when people found out that it was all false?
Some scholars who believe Jesus existed as the majority of them do, do believe that it is almost human creativity to try and construct the real life of Jesus Christ based on the theological writings. Vis a Vis, the New Testament. Some stories like the Pericope Adultarae which is a known interpolation into the Gospel of John have been the point of scrutiny for many theologians and apologists in their effort to make it a true story. Whoever inserted it first, may have taken this story from someone like Eusebius who mentions a woman of sin in a so called gospel hebrews that Papias spoke of in the early 2nd century. But this person tried this insertion too late. And some evangelical apologists use this as an argument. Then you get an argument about the protogospel of James where some people like like W. Petersen argue the Pericope Adultarae existed due to a phrase 16:2. Its not good enough and puts them as "hook or crook attempts". When people make such arguments to try and make a latter insertion valid it puts the authenticity at huge peril.
Critical scholars take the words of Josephus associating James with Jesus who they called the Messiah as the only historically available statement. Which has prompted some scholars like the unorthodox muslim Reza Aslan to take the approach of consulting many many scholars, their works, the recorded history of the Romans, the setting of the time and place and plug Jesus into that in order to figure out a Jesus that is historical. Now this Jesus would obviously contradict the Jesus of Christian Theology or as a matter of fact, any Jesus of any theology.
Jesus is known today by most as a carpenter. Was he? Tekton as anyone knows does not mean carpenter unless you add "wood" into the word. A Tekton of stone would be a stone worker. A Tekton of iron would be an iron worker. Which Jesus is the real Jesus?
While Judaism rejects Jesus, Islam embraces him as a prophet of God. A Messenger. The Quran is a 7th century document, thus being 7 centuries apart from Jesus as a historical document it can be argued that it is not valid. A curious case is the statement in this book that Jesus was not crucified nor killed by them as in the Jews but only made to appear as they did. The usual opposition to this is that "why would God make it appear as if they crucified him"?? Well, the text does not say that it was God who made it appear as such. So that's a cloven assumption. It also denies that the Jews killed him which means it could always be the Romans who did, and that's the position of scholars anyway, that it was the Romans who killed him for sedition.
There were many Christs in that era. Many people called themselves Christ. And many of them were killed by the Romans and their movements crushed. Yep, it was for sedition. Judas the Galilean, Hezekiah, Simon of Peraea, Menahem, Simon son of Kochba, Simonson of Giora, the Samaritan, Theudas, Athronges, etc. Thus, was Jesus a significant figure in comparison to everyone else at that time, or was he just one of them and nothing special?? Well it certainly seems like it because the "decadent" Josephus would make him a little significant if he was wouldn't he? Or did he subdue Jesus on purpose? Also if Jesus was not a significant character how in the world is he the only venerated Christ of the time, though he was also killed in the same manner like everyone else?
Who is the real Jesus?
