• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The journey to find or construct the real Jesus. Peril or silver lining??

PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
firedragon said:
Sure. But this thread is not to discuss if it matters or not. That would require a lot of research in a whole different point. Another thread.
Click to expand...
Ah, you wanted to discuss unresolvable and mostly meaningless speculations. My bad.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Marcion said:
Q-lite is a different version of Q that follows if you prefer the Three Source Hypothesis over the Two Source Hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Q-lite is an argues for a double tradition containing a mixture of Q and independent traditions. The riddle that they admit to being unable to solve is knowing precisely when the double tradition is a feature of Luke’s use of Matthew or when Luke and Matthew have shared oral or written sources beyond Mark. This is not a standard or established source but only attributes most of the sayings material to a document known to both Matthew and Luke (Q-lite), attribute the narrative material in the double tradition to other traditions accessed by Luke and Matthew, and suggest that Luke’s use of Matthew was at a latent stage and sparing, perhaps even as a first revision to the Lucan text. It is definitely not some arbitrary exercise and it is only an attempt at harmonising J with 9 specific reasons and even the proponents of Q-lite speaks of 93% of Mark being in Luke while 8% of John is in the whole of the synoptic corpus including the Q source.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
PureX said:
Ah, you wanted to discuss unresolvable and mostly meaningless speculations. My bad.
Click to expand...

If you want to discuss if all of this is meaningless, please provide some data with good research to prove that these things are all meaningless, in a new thread, with an explanation why you are in a religious forum named religiousforum when you think it is meaningless. Please go ahead and open a new thread and discuss your meaningless topic.

Have a blast.
 
M

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
firedragon said:
Q-lite is an argues for a double tradition containing a mixture of Q and independent traditions. The riddle that they admit to being unable to solve is knowing precisely when the double tradition is a feature of Luke’s use of Matthew or when Luke and Matthew have shared oral or written sources beyond Mark. This is not a standard or established source but only attributes most of the sayings material to a document known to both Matthew and Luke (Q-lite), attribute the narrative material in the double tradition to other traditions accessed by Luke and Matthew, and suggest that Luke’s use of Matthew was at a latent stage and sparing, perhaps even as a first revision to the Lucan text. It is definitely not some arbitrary exercise and it is only an attempt at harmonising J with 9 specific reasons and even the proponents of Q-lite speaks of 93% of Mark being in Luke while 8% of John is in the whole of the synoptic corpus including the Q source.
Click to expand...
In essence the Three Source Hypothesis is the same as the Two-Source Hypothesis but then with a later aLuke who changed his mind and decided to add something extra from gMatthew after all, hence the use of gMatthew as the third source.

It solves the problem with those akward deviating sayings in the "normal" Q reconstruction that fit so very well in gMatthew but do not at all fit well with the sayings of Q-lite.
Many people will argue that allowing aLuke to have used gMatthew is an argument against the existence of Q but in fact there are multiple arguments for the existence of Q-lite so you cannot dispense with Q-lite that easily.
The reconstruction makes for a very strong and coherent text that is quite distinct from the Christian added texts in the New Testament in both language and content.

And since the ideological thrust of the Q-lite text is so strong and different from the added Christian material, this is indirect proof of a personality like that of Jesus at the start of it all.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Marcion said:
In essence the Three Source Hypothesis is the same as the Two-Source Hypothesis but then with a later aLuke who changed his mind and decided to add something extra from gMatthew after all, hence the use of gMatthew as the third source.

It solves the problem with those akward deviating sayings in the "normal" Q reconstruction that fit so very well in gMatthew but do not at all fit well with the sayings of Q-lite.
Many people will argue that allowing aLuke to have used gMatthew is an argument against the existence of Q but in fact there are multiple arguments for the existence of Q-lite so you cannot dispense with Q-lite that easily.
The reconstruction makes for a very strong and coherent text that is quite distinct from the Christian added texts in the New Testament in both language and content.

And since the ideological thrust of the Q-lite text is so strong and different from the added Christian material, this is indirect proof of a personality like that of Jesus at the start of it all.
Click to expand...

Not really. All of these hypotheses only provide an indication that the gospels had tradition. Also, proof of a personality like Jesus exists even externally and is stated in the op very clearly. This is not to dispute the existence of Jesus.
 
M

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
firedragon said:
Not really. All of these hypotheses only provide an indication that the gospels had tradition. Also, proof of a personality like Jesus exists even externally and is stated in the op very clearly. This is not to dispute the existence of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Your suggestion that the hypotheses are more or less interchangable is incorrect. Of course an atheist will not be convinced by a body of sayings with a clear spiritual philosophical content, they don't know the difference between religion and spirituality nor do they want to know.
Externally we have no proof of the existence of Jesus whatsoever, nor of the existence of Paul the apostle.
 
Regiomontanus

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
firedragon said:
please read that part in the op.
Click to expand...

? I did. As I said, the son usually went into the same trade as the father, but not always. We do not know anything about Jesus other than what we are told in the Gospels (the few, other, later mentions are not illuminating). And probably never will. Having said that though, I would think it very unlikely he would be an iron worker, by the way.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
firedragon said:
Well. There are various approaches that people have taken as a starting point. Some have taken history as a starting point or what we deem as documented history. Yet of course, like you, many have also taken the New Testament as a starting point.
Click to expand...
If we take history as our starting point, then we begin by remarking that there are no known contemporary references to Jesus at all. That would not be unusual, of course.

But while it's not incredible, it's surprising that had there indeed been a trial of Jesus, involving the leaders of the Jewish faith and the Prefect himself, it could have gone unnoticed.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
blü 2 said:
If we take history as our starting point, then we begin by remarking that there are no known contemporary references to Jesus at all.
Click to expand...

Thats not how you do it.

I have already stated this in the OP. Please take a read if interested. And clarify if you wish.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
firedragon said:
Thats not how you do it.

I have already stated this in the OP. Please take a read if interested. And clarify if you wish.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's part of how I do it. I assure you I'm not without experience of historical researching.
 
C

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
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?
Click to expand...

AD (Anno Domini) means the number of years since the birth of Jesus. Most people subtract (rather than ad) as they age. Next year, I'll be the same age for the third year in a row.

Jesus, too, might lie about his age, trying to seem more appealing to chicks (maybe 2020 years old, instead of 2021).

There is an age cream that is guaranteed to make people look 10 years younger. . . uh, that would be 2011 years old.

When we try to calculate Jesus's age, he might try to change the subject.

There is beauty in extreme old age (but I'm not quite old enough, as mentioned by Gilbert and Sullivan in the Mikado).

Many claimed to be the Jewish prophesied Messiah, and a few were hailed as the Messiah.

A lot of popes tried to make images of Jesus seem more angelic or less freakish, so they fudged his appearance. They felt that Christ (spirit of Jesus), that rose from the dead, looked like an albino (white hair and red eyes), so they insisted that paintings didn't match the description of Christ in the bible. If they alter the appearance, they might also lie about age. What if Jesus's birth date was on some unholy day? Then they have to lie to cover it up.

What the Bible says about David's Prophecies of Christ's Crucifixion

A thousand years before the crucifixion of Jesus, King David wrote about the crucifixion of another person (please see the link above). Details seemed so similar that some claim that David's story was a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus. Actually, many crucifixions were similar to each other. That is because they used similar tactics.

Romans did horrible things....crucified....fed people to lions for public entertainment, etc. They always tried to blame others. So, they might ask a crowd if they want Jesus crucified. The obvious answer is no (except for nuts who ask suicidal people to jump). But, the Romans were also well known for punishing anyone (and their whole families) if they don't agree with their cruel actions. This puts the guilt on the onlookers, and removes guilt from the guilty Romans.

Romans didn't want a Messiah, because that would sap their power.

Eventually, Romans did accept Christianity, but I think that it wasn't about believing, it was about recognizing the power of religion, and seeking that power for themselves.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
blü 2 said:
What is ). in English?
Click to expand...

Sorry. Was on the phone.

When someone says "I know the method" and show that should suffice to take authority, it shows that the conversation has no point. Have a great day.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
firedragon said:
Sorry. Was on the phone.

When someone says "I know the method" and show that should suffice to take authority, it shows that the conversation has no point. Have a great day.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
These things are true:

─ I didn't assert any other authority than an informed basis for my view.
─ I can lecture you on historical method at least as well as you can lecture me.
─ I don't like being condescended to any more than you do.

Go well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top