Is the third quest for the historical Jesus dead?

[lukethethird]

When people refer to the ‘historical Jesus’ I think most people would understand that to mean the Jesus that is verifiable/aspects of Jesus life that are verifiable. Not the dogmatic Jesus as presented by the gospels.

So I think it would not be correct to say the historical Jesus is in the Bible since most of what is presented in the gospels is not verifiable.

Interestingly, not a word of the life of Jesus is verifiable. That in itself is not to say there wasn't an historical Jesus, just that we can't know.

 

[lukethethird]

Just to be clear, I think Acts and Josephus serve as compelling evidence for the historicity of Jesus: historicity but not divinity.

And yet it appears as though the author/s of Acts went to lengths to prove Jesus's divinity, there are numerous examples of that, beginning with the witnesses of Jesus's bodily ascension from earth into the heavens.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And yet it appears as though the author/s of Acts went to lengths to prove Jesus's divinity, there are numerous examples of that, beginning with the witnesses of Jesus's bodily ascension from earth into the heavens.

In my opinion, he failed.

 

[shunyadragon]

And yet it appears as though the author/s of Acts went to lengths to prove Jesus's divinity, there are numerous examples of that, beginning with the witnesses of Jesus's bodily ascension from earth into the heavens.

The authors of Acts indeed believed this, but in and of itself it remains subjective, anecdotal and not recorded at time of the life of Jesus.

 

[lukethethird]

In my opinion, he failed.

But if historical by the same reading, quite real.

 

[lukethethird]

The authors of Acts indeed believed this, but in and of itself it remains subjective, anecdotal and not recorded at time of the life of Jesus.

Nothing is known to have been recorded at the time of Jesus, yet people formulate beliefs just the same.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nothing is known to have been recorded at the time of Jesus, yet people formulate beliefs just the same.

Yes, formulated beliefs are not necessarily true beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

But if historical by the same reading, quite real.

Historicity is not the same as what is written in ancient records, such as the Tanakh, New Testament, nor the Quran. Ancient scripture are not historical records. They are written as narratives in the context of history. Yes they will contain historical persons and facts as all ancient religious writings.

Historians generally accept most of the words of Jesus that are common to all the Gospels as reasonably accurate citations of Jesus, as is possible some of the 'Sayings of Jesus' in other sources.

 

[lukethethird]

Historicity is not the same as what is written in ancient records, such as the Tanakh, New Testament, nor the Quran. Ancient scripture are not historical records. They are written as narratives in the context of history. Yes they will contain historical persons and facts as all ancient religious writings.

Historians generally accept most of the words of Jesus that are common to all the Gospels as reasonably accurate citations of Jesus, as is possible some of the 'Sayings of Jesus' in other sources.

Words of Jesus that are common to all the Gospels are a result of plagiarism, this is evidenced by a reading of the gospels, read about the Synoptic Problem.

 

[lukethethird]

Yes, formulated beliefs are not necessarily true beliefs.

All beliefs are formulated one way or the other and true, beliefs are not necessarily true so one would think that we ought to be cautious with material regarding Jesus since none of it comes from his supposed time.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

What are the other three attempts, please?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

Words of Jesus that are common to all the Gospels are a result of plagiarism, this is evidenced by a reading of the gospels, read about the Synoptic Problem.

The use of Jesus in sayings and other statement previously known is 'not plagiarism,' because in no place in the gospels did Jesus claim that his statement were original and composed by himself.

 

[shunyadragon]

All beliefs are formulated one way or the other and true, beliefs are not necessarily true so one would think that we ought to be cautious with material regarding Jesus since none of it comes from his supposed time.

I object to the above bold. All beliefs in in one way or the other are believed to be true by those who believe, but nonethe less they often disagree as to their understanding in many diverse and conflicting interpretation. I prefer a more specific understanding ot 'true.'

Other than that we sort of agree,

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why resurrect a two-year-old thread?

 

[paarsurrey]

Why resurrect a two-year-old thread?

Is the issue dead, please?

Regards

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is the issue dead, please?

Are you politely asking a question or intently urging confirmation?

 

[shunyadragon]

Why resurrect a two-year-old thread?

Why not???????????????

It is better then starting another thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why not???????????????

If it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion it has somewhat of the adolescent quality of an abundance of redundant punctuation marks.

It is better then starting another thread.

Nonsense.

 

[shunyadragon]

If it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion it has somewhat of the adolescent quality of an abundance of redundant punctuation marks.

Nonsense.

I guess every site needs a picky annal grammarian.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

Agreed. Jesus is nothing more than a character in a religious book.