Did Jesus Christ actually die?

[danieldemol]

There was a standard used to decide which writings would be accepted as canonical. Jesus wrote no books, but taught orally and by example. The followers of Jesus recognized Him as divinely authoritative long before His words were written down, much less assimilated and officially canonized by the Church. For example, the officers who refused to arrest Jesus declare, "No one ever spoke like this man" (John 7:46). Similarly, Peter proclaims that Jesus spoke the words of eternal life (John 6:68). The Church had the essence of the New Testament canon before any of the books had been penned. After they were written down and began circulating in the churches, they were considered authoritative not as holy books as such, but as writings that contained the holy words of Jesus. The authority of the words was primary.

In a nutshell you appear to be saying that the members of a sect consider the founder of the sect to be authoritative.

But that did not stop people from ascribing their own ideas to Jesus then writing them into the Gospels before they were canonised.

You might find this old thread by @The Reverend Bob to be illuminating on this topic;

The Conflicting Theologies of the New Testament

 

[Skywalker]

In a nutshell you appear to be saying that the members of a sect consider the founder of the sect to be authoritative.

But that did not stop people from ascribing their own ideas to Jesus then writing them into the Gospels before they were canonised.

You might find this old thread by @The Reverend Bob to be illuminating;

The Conflicting Theologies of the New Testament

The gnostic gospels are antithetical to the message of repentance and making God a part of your life and the Messiah coming to teach us how to live.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The church didn't create the canon. The church didn't determine which books would be called Scripture, the inspired Word of God. Instead, the church recognized, or discovered, which books had been inspired from their inception.

Just keep repeating that. I am sure that you will believe it sooner or later.

 

[Skywalker]

In a nutshell you appear to be saying that the members of a sect consider the founder of the sect to be authoritative.

But that did not stop people from ascribing their own ideas to Jesus then writing them into the Gospels before they were canonised.

You might find this old thread by @The Reverend Bob to be illuminating;

The Conflicting Theologies of the New Testament

While the ideas leading to Gnosticism initially appeared in the first century, however, the philosophy didn't fully develop until the mid-to-late second century, so it couldn't have competed with the New Testament Gospel, which was already established. Also, the New Testament canon developed in stages. Before the New Testament books were written, the only written scriptures for Christians were the Old Testament books. But the apostles, teachers, missionaries, and others shared the apostle's teachings about Jesus orally. Even liberal scholars believe that Paul's testimony was part of an early Christian creed that developed between eighteen months and eight years after the resurrection.

 

[danieldemol]

The gnostic gospels are antithetical to the message of repentance and making God a part of your life and the Messiah coming to teach us how to live.

I was talking about the canonised Gospels

 

[Skywalker]

Just keep repeating that. I am sure that you will believe it sooner or later.

The gospel was more oral history than oral tradition, since the living eyewitnesses and apostles were still around. 1 Corinthians 11 12. Luke states that he had prepared an orderly account of the narrative that "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered to us" (Luke 1:2). These facts had been delivered orally among Jesus' early followers.

 

[danieldemol]

Even liberal scholars believe that Paul's testimony was part of an early Christian creed that developed between eighteen months and eight years after the resurrection.

Lies can be made up on the spot, eighteen months to eight years is plenty of time for a lie to be formed.

 

[Skywalker]

I was talking about the canonised Gospels

Obviously, the oral gospel originated with Jesus, who shocked the Jews with his level of Bible understanding despite having no formal training as a rabbi-John 7:15. Jesus taught through sayings and parables. These forms of communication were not introduced by Jesus but were rooted in Jewish and Greco-Roman culture, which readied His audience for these methods.

 

[Skywalker]

Lies can be made up on the spot, eighteen months to eight years is plenty of time for a lie to be formed.

Christian orthodox teachings and traditions-doctrinal summaries, hymns, and sacraments that emphasize the Church's core theology-were being passed on orally when the New Testament books were being written. They deny there were competing versions of the Gospel vying for prominence in the early churches. At the heart of these oral teachings was that Jesus was exalted-that He participated in creation and is the resurrected Redeemer, seated above all other spiritual forces.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The gospel was more oral history than oral tradition, since the living eyewitnesses and apostles were still around. 1 Corinthians 11 12. Luke states that he had prepared an orderly account of the narrative that "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered to us" (Luke 1:2). These facts had been delivered orally among Jesus' early followers.

Once again, no eyewitnesses for the gospels. That concept has been rather well refuted. Also all of the gospels are anonymous. It is an error to say "Luke states". Luke was written far too late for there to be reliable eyewitnesses. It was all oral tradition, and that is not the most reliable source of history.

 

[Skywalker]

Once again, no eyewitnesses for the gospels. That concept has been rather well refuted. Also all of the gospels are anonymous. It is an error to say "Luke states". Luke was written far too late for there to be reliable eyewitnesses. It was all oral tradition, and that is not the most reliable source of history.

The historicity of Jesus Christ and the historical reliability of the Gospels wasn't always disputed, but beginning in the late 18th century, liberal scholars began to construct alternative versions of Jesus' life-His identity, character, motivations, and nature-ideas Albert Schweitzer calls the "fictitious lives of Jesus." Some argued that Jesus staged the miracles He appeared to preform. Others claimed He healed with medicines, not through supernatural powers. Some contended He didn't die on the cross but "swooned" and that the Essenes nursed Him back to health so He could visit His followers in the guise of resurrection appearances. Grounded in raw supposition rather than evidence, these hypotheses gained little scholarly attention.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The historicity of Jesus Christ and the historical reliability of the Gospels wasn't always disputed, but beginning in the late 18th century, liberal scholars began to construct alternative versions of Jesus' life-His identity, character, motivations, and nature-ideas Albert Schweitzer calls the "fictitious lives of Jesus." Some argued that Jesus staged the miracles He appeared to preform. Others claimed He healed with medicines, not through supernatural powers. Some contended He didn't die on the cross but "swooned" and that the Essenes nursed Him back to health so He could visit His followers in the guise of resurrection appearances. Grounded in raw supposition rather than evidence, these hypotheses gained little scholarly attention.

That is because history was written by people that had been indoctrinated into Christianity for their entire lives. And one should not use the term "liberal" . It would be better to use the term "rational". People began to think through the claims of the Bible, they recognized its failures, and were not as much under the thumb of religious beliefs as historians in the past.

The fact is that we really have no idea how true the Gospels are, well except for the parts that have been clearly refuted such as Luke's nativity. But once one can look honestly at why they do not believe other religions people have to not believe Christianity as well, if they can reason rationally.

 

[oldbadger]

The church didn't create the canon. The church didn't determine which books would be called Scripture, the inspired Word of God. Instead, the church recognized, or discovered, which books had been inspired from their inception.

Word of God?
Well, that's strange because the gospels contradict each other quite a lot, and timelines of events also differ.

Look at the last week when Jesus was in Jerusalem with his supporters; no single day's events shown in Mark match with John's gospel. None.

What did Jesus do during his first day after arrival in Jerusalem? Whatever your answer I will be able to show you a different story!
Word of God? No.....

 

[oldbadger]

Once again, no eyewitnesses for the gospels.

I think that the author of 'Mark' might have been a witness to some events.

The anecdotes and reports in the gospels which 'don't help Christianity' can cause me to think that there is truth to be harvested out of them, both for and against the existence of the people in the stories, but that can only support personal opinion.

 

[oldbadger]

Obviously, the oral gospel originated with Jesus, who shocked the Jews with his level of Bible understanding despite having no formal training as a rabbi-John 7:15. Jesus taught through sayings and parables. These forms of communication were not introduced by Jesus but were rooted in Jewish and Greco-Roman culture, which readied His audience for these methods.

G-Mark doesn't focus too much on the knowledge of Jesus, and I believe that much of Jesus's knowledge actually came from the Baptist.

By the time John was writing his gospel the story had expanded so much that Jesus could raise the dead, show great knowledge, certainly didn't carry out the lesser activities such as casting demons etc..... that was too lowly for Jesus by the 2nd century AD!

John's Jesus had become so much more than an activist for justice. Which is probably why such a huge % of Christian quotes come from...... G-John!

 

[lukethethird]

Once again, no eyewitnesses for the gospels. That concept has been rather well refuted. Also all of the gospels are anonymous. It is an error to say "Luke states". Luke was written far too late for there to be reliable eyewitnesses. It was all oral tradition, and that is not the most reliable source of history.

There is no evidence for an oral tradition, but plenty for a literary tradition. Reading the gospels as a history of any sort is probably a mistake.

 

[oldbadger]

The gospel was more oral history than oral tradition, since the living eyewitnesses and apostles were still around. 1 Corinthians 11 12. Luke states that he had prepared an orderly account of the narrative that "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered to us" (Luke 1:2). These facts had been delivered orally among Jesus' early followers.

Please name the eyewitnesses.

I can feel sure about one........ only.

 

[oldbadger]

There is no evidence for an oral tradition, but plenty for a literary tradition.

No...... Many of John's (2nd century) accounts were not previously written down or I would think that the Church would have kept these. Most working Jews in the Northern provinces were probably illiterate and so they would have had a very strong oral-tradition.

Reading the gospels as a history of any sort is probably a mistake.

Maybe for a Christian it might be a mistake. But for a student of history studying early 1st century Palestine + the gospels it sure can throw some light on to events.

 

[Clara Tea]

Jesus looked like a Jew when he was alive. Back then, before mating with Germans, Jews looked like Arabs (both are Semitic). So, Jesus would have had black curly hair, heavy body hair, and dark skin. When Jesus rose from the dead, he had long blond hair, bronze feet, and red eyes. Either a different person rose from the grave, or the spirit inside Jesus (whom we call Christ) looked a lot different. It is possible that the person who rose from the grave was not Jesus (despite what witnesses saw).

 

[Skywalker]

Please name the eyewitnesses.

I can feel sure about one........ only.

Luke. There is evidence that he was a doctor. Saint Luke | Facts & History

Luke was a physician and possibly a Gentile. He was not one of the original 12 Apostles but may have been one of the 70 disciples appointed by Jesus (Luke 10). He also may have accompanied St. Paul on his missionary journeys.