Is the third quest for the historical Jesus dead?

[danieldemol]

The gospels are document evidence by people whom internal evidence places in a time to have known Jesus and which the early church accepted as being written by people who knew and/or knew of Jesus through witnesses

Check out the "miracle" of the Catholic Priests that survived unscathed the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on YouTube

It is an informative video showing how people who know the truth of a historical matter are prepared to lie when there is an agenda to convert and keep the donations rolling in.

 

[PruePhillip]

If so, will there be a fourth attempt to resurrect the historical Jesus?

I ask because I read Bart Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist, as well as the reviews.

You are not meant to find the "historical Jesus"
It is presented as an article of faith.
There are things which suggest he existed, and things which
suggest he didn't exist. Doesn't matter. Any person who believes
in the Christ, or disbelieves in the Christ, must do so on the basis
of personal expression.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are not meant to find the "historical Jesus"
It is presented as an article of faith.
There are things which suggest he existed, and things which
suggest he didn't exist. Doesn't matter. Any person who believes
in the Christ, or disbelieves in the Christ, must do so on the basis
of personal expression.

And your authority to dictate what we are "meant to find" or what we "must do" springs from what particular fount of haughtiness?

 

[firedragon]

If so, will there be a fourth attempt to resurrect the historical Jesus?

I ask because I read Bart Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist, as well as the reviews.

I don't really understand your position. Well, you read a great book, but what is your point?

 

[Yazata]

Is the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus Dead?

I'm not up to speed on theology so I'm not sure what the 'third quest' is or what supposedly makes it distinctive. It seem to me to just be a name applied to a resurgence of interest in historical Jesus literature since the 1970's. Lots of different approaches and methodologies baked into that.

Particular methodologies that may or may not define the 'third quest' might have fallen out of favor. And there doesn't seem to be any more scholarly unanimity now about the historical Jesus than there ever was.

If so, will there be a fourth attempt to resurrect the historical Jesus?

Sure. I don't know whether they will call it a 'fourth quest'. But Jesus seems to have been a historical figure, so that there will probably always be interest in who he was in real life, apart from all the accretions of subsequent tradition.

 

[lukethethird]

I don't really understand your position. Well, you read a great book, but what is your point?

It was more of a disappointment than great.

 

[firedragon]

It was more of a disappointment than great.

Ah okay. So you are disappointed, and you don't agree? Whats your position?

 

[lukethethird]

An interesting collection is The Historical Jesus in Context. In her introduction, Amy-Jill Levine notes :

Understanding Jesus and the Gospels requires appreciation of Judaism and the Pagan world: their history, literature, ethics, and practices. For the first time, this volume presents these variegated sources, almost all in original translation. Some of the contents will prompt readers to a new view of the historical Jesus; perhaps what previously had been seen as authentic will come to be seen as derivative of a Pagan or Jewish model.Other readers will appreciate the cultural embeddedness of the Christian tradition, how it told its stories and conveyed its teachings in the idiom of the people. And still other readers will come to see how the teachings of and about Jesus would have sounded to those who first heard them, and perhaps, through that echo, come to a new understanding for themselves.​

Still, as far as I know, there is not even a hint of a breakthrough in HJ studies. and I seriously doubt that such a thing is even possible. We're destined to revisit to this topic again and again only to be met with one fringe quoting the KJV while the other babbles about Mithraism.

Thanks, if I come across it I will give it a read.

 

[lukethethird]

Ah okay. So you are disappointed, and you don't agree? Whats your position?

Position? I acknowledge the various theories for Jesus's existence as well as the theories that don't require an historical Jesus, some better supported than others, but I wouldn't go so far as to support a particular theory. I was hoping Ehrman's book would have shed some light on an historical Jesus but it was a disappointment.

 

[firedragon]

Position? I acknowledge the various theories for Jesus's existence as well as the theories that don't require an historical Jesus, some better supported than others, but I wouldn't go so far as to support a particular theory. I was hoping Ehrman's book would have shed some light on an historical Jesus but it was a disappointment.

Yep. Theres nothing new in the book except that he takes a more scholarly approach than most and he quotes the others who oppose like wells and where they get their bases from as well. There is nothing new but its a good summation coming from a New Testament scholar.

Anyway we all view with our predispositions. Cheers.

 

[February-Saturday]

The idea of counting years has been around for as long as we have written records, but the idea of syncing up where everyone starts counting is relatively new. Today the international standard is to designate years based on a traditional reckoning of the year Jesus was born — the “A.D.” and "B.C." system.

"A.D." stands for anno domini, Latin for “in the year of the lord,” and refers specifically to the birth of Jesus Christ. "B.C." stands for "before Christ." In English, it is common for "A.D." to precede the year, so that the translation of "A.D. 2014" would read "in the year of our lord 2014." In recent years, an alternative form of B.C./A.D. has gained traction. Many publications use "C.E.," or "common era," and "B.C.E.," or "before common era." Before we talk about how and why the system was invented, let's get some historical context.

Keeping Time: The Origin of B.C. & A.D. | Live Science

If Jesus was a hoax, then our numbered years are based on a hoax. All numbered calendars are hoaxes. The date on the newspapers are hoaxes. Your birthdays are hoaxes!

I don't think anyone is making the case that our calendar is based on a hoax?

The Julian calendar alone was created centuries after Jesus supposedly lived. By that time, I would imagine most people would have been thoroughly and earnestly convinced of his existence, not propagating a hoax, whether Jesus really existed or not. His "existence" became common knowledge, and most of the scholars were religious and fervent supporters of this.

Common knowledge from centuries ago isn't really what we should be basing our modern knowledge on today if we can help it. It does help us understand the beliefs and practices of historical civilizations or figures, but it doesn't tell us whether those beliefs are true on their own or not. We used to smear feces on our bandages, for instance, for centuries. It was supported by archaic equivalents of world health organizations, even.

I do think that we likely know more about the historical period surrounding Jesus's supposed existence than Pope Gregory XIII did in 1582 when he created out modern calendar. We're probably better equipped to answer whether Jesus existed or not because of that, especially as we make great strides in historical analysis and the sciences that go into archaeology.

At that point, the only way you could perpetuate your argument is with fallacious appeals to tradition.

 

[MJFlores]

The Julian calendar alone was created centuries after Jesus supposedly lived. By that time, I would imagine most people would have been thoroughly and earnestly convinced of his existence, not propagating a hoax, whether Jesus really existed or not. His "existence" became common knowledge, and most of the scholars were religious and fervent supporters of this.

 

[February-Saturday]

I'm obviously speaking specifically about the Proleptic Julian calendar where Christ's birth is actually calculated into the year with the invention of Anno Domini, created by Dionysus Exiguus in the 6th century, given the subject matter, and not the Classical Julian calendar itself.

ETA: Which is also known as the "Christianized Julian Calendar." Unless you're taking issue with something else I said here? I thought that was fairly clear by the context of the conversation.

 

[MJFlores]

I'm obviously speaking specifically about the Proleptic Julian calendar where Christ's birth is actually calculated into the year with the invention of Anno Domini, created by Dionysus Exiguus in the 6th century, given the subject matter, and not the Classical Julian calendar itself.

ETA: Which is also known as the "Christianized Julian Calendar." Unless you're taking issue with something else I said here? I thought that was fairly clear by the context of the conversation.

My contention is that if our calendar is based on a fictional character.
Let us say, the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause then it would render that what we are using to
date our historical events are based on a non historical character.
And if that is the case, then everything is really laughable that the entire human race
have not corrected the calendar's year.
Atheists what are you doing? You are doing nothing!

 

[lukethethird]

My contention is that if our calendar is based on a fictional character...

Maybe you have never been fooled.

 

[MJFlores]

Maybe you have never been fooled.

We have been fooled.
But if we are fooled maybe someone has to stand up to the occasion and say

 

[lukethethird]

You are not meant to find the "historical Jesus"
It is presented as an article of faith.
There are things which suggest he existed, and things which
suggest he didn't exist. Doesn't matter. Any person who believes
in the Christ, or disbelieves in the Christ, must do so on the basis
of personal expression.

Facts are scarce, but there seems to be no shortage of beliefs.

 

[PruePhillip]

Facts are scarce, but there seems to be no shortage of beliefs.

True, but the beliefs go both ways.
Facts are scarce about how the universe created itself when
it didn't even exist - but opinions are everywhere.

 

[lukethethird]

No need for any quests. He is in the Bible.

Thanks, but some of us need a little more to go on than faith in The Bible.

 

[lukethethird]

The search for the 'historical Jesus' based archaeological, ancient texts, and any other direct evidence is running into the wall of diminishing returns, since the Middle East has been scoured many times in this search. They are left looking for scrapes.

I like Bart Ehrman and have most of his books.I live near UNC and have listened to him speak. I do not agree with everything he proposes concerning the historical Jesus, because like many historians there is a bit of conjecture in his view, but considering the evidence we have we do agree.

I believe the historical Jesus is a real person who lived at the time the NT describes. He was the son of a working class family,equivalent to the middle class today. and his father was a carpenter. He was apparently literate in Hebrew, Aramaic, maybe some Greek, possibly a Rabbi (?). He was first a part of a Messianic movement, maybe a follower of John the Baptist, claimed to be the promised Messiah, and the King of the Jews. He was arrested, tried, convicted of treason against Rome, and as a result he was executed by crucifixion.

Yes, according to what we read in The Bible, that's the story.