The Historical Jesus

[S-word]

The story book confirms there was only one human parent involved (Mary)

quote=Composer; The story book confirms there was only one human parent involved (Mary)

Righto, let's see you attempt to reveal where the bible confirms your rediculous statement that there was only one human parent involved in the conception of Jesus. I have already pointed out to you that the bible reveals that Joseph the son of Heli who is the 40th descendant of the Levite Nathan, who is the half brother of Solomon, is the biological father of Jesus, but before you start mouthing off and proving conclusively that you are totally ignorant to God’s word, perhaps you should first read what’s written below.
And please do not start by quoting your ignorant sources such as Raymond E Brown, who cannot even Google up all the evidence of the Conjunction of Jupiter the King planet in 7 B.C., and the triple conjunction in 6 B.C., and the comet of 5 B.C. It is biblical evidence that you need to find, as you have confidently stated, that according to the bible there was only one human parent involved in the conception of Jesus.

Luke shows that Mary had never had sex with a man until she was found to be pregnant three months later, (A Biblical fact) and Luke 3: 23; reveals the biological father of Jesus to be Joseph the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi. (a biblical fact) This Joseph should not be confused with the Joseph who married the pregnant and unmarried woman ‘Mary,’ and never had sex with her until she had given birth to Jesus, who was the son of Joseph and the grandson of Heli from the tribe of Levi. (A biblical fact) That other Joseph, whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew, is the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah. (A biblical fact)

And the only reference to the physical birth of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew, is that he was the fulfilment of the prophecy of the Lord through his servant Isaiah, which prophecy was that an “Almah,” an unmarried woman would be with child and would bear a son, who people would give many names to, which has all been fulfilled. (This is a biblical fact)The first time that “Virgin’ appears in any translation of the Bible in reference to the mother of Jesus is when it was translated to Latin. (This is an absolute fact)

The 5th century Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate,’ was due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, ‘King Constantine,’ who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death. (Fact)

In transcribing the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “unmarried female would be with child and bear a son,” into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew were forced to use the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication. (Fact)

‘Parthenos,’ was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, (Fact) and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, (Fact) so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who transcribed Isaiah’s words, (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin. For the Hebrew has a specific term for ‘virgin,’ “Bethulah” which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the woman who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14. (Fact)

Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, gives the meaning of the Hebrew word “Almah,” which is used in Isaiah 7: 14; as, (Concealment: Unmarried woman.) (Fact) When Mary, the obedient handmaid to her indwelling spirit, who had told the angel three months earlier that she was, at that point in time still a virgin, met for the first time and was attracted to the biological father of Jesus, the act of obedience from which the child of Gods promise was conceived in the womb of the “Almah,” unmarried woman, was concealed in the shadow beneath the wings of the Lord of spirits.

Righto, go ahead and prove biblically that that there was only one human parent involved in the conception of Jesus.

 

[S-word]

And again, you presume wrong. Logical fallacies do not count as logical arguments. I've read the Bible multiple times. I grew up in a fundamental Christian household, and was attending Bible studies as a little boy. I had read the entire Bible myself for the first time by the time I was 10. Sure, I did not fully understand it, but that is also why I've reread it over and over again. Many of these times were under the supervision of ministers who helped guide me through the readings. Others were simply of my own doing so that I could understand the religion more. So before making ignorant remarks, such as attacking my credibility, make sure you know what you're talking about.

I only insult people such as yourself who are continuously attacking my credibility.

There is a difference between reading and understanding what you have read, and believing what you have read in the Bible, and discrediting the scriptures without any evidence whatsoever.

quote=fallingblood; Honestly, I don't care what you say is the truth revealed in God's Holy word.

We know you don’t you don’t believe that anything written in the bible is truth, and your main weapon is, “I don’t believe that.”

quote=fallingblood; You've already shown that you are not backed by scholars or historians.
Look at John Dominic Crossan, who is considered the premier scholar on the historical Jesus. He is former Catholic monk, and is still Christian. Yet, he would disagree with pretty much everything you said. Much of my study has been done under him. Look at John P. Meier, another leader in the field of the historical Jesus.

So, much of your study has been done under John Dominic Crossan, has it?

You have two entirely different genetic records written by two entirely different people, who are recording two entirely different lines of genetic descent, one from Solomon who is from the tribe of Judah, in which there are only 24 generations between Solomon and Joseph the son of Jacob, and Jacob from the tribe of Judah, is not the grandfather of Jesus, and nor is his son Joseph, the biological father of Jesus, as he had no sexual relations with Mary until after she had given birth to Jesus, who the Bible reveals is the son of another man by the name Joseph, and that Joseph is from the tribe of Levit, and He is the biological father of Jesus, Joseph the son of Heli, who is the grandfather of Jesus, and there are about 40 generations between the father of Jesus and his great ancestor, Nathan the Priest to the King. And you say that there is no biblical evidence that these are two different men by the name Joseph. Did you dream that one up yourself, or did you receive this great revelation while studying under the great John Dominic Crossan?

Question one: Do you honestly believe that the genealogy of Joseph the 24th descendant of Solomon from the tribe of Judah, as recorded in Matthew, and the genealogy recorded in Luke, which is that of the other Joseph, who is the 40th descendant of Nathan, from the tribe of Levi, are the genealogy of the one single man named Joseph, and if so, please provide the evidence upon which you base this belief.

J. D. Crossan, the great teacher under who much of your study has been done, suggests that Jesus was illiterate. Jesus who, as a child of about 12 years old, is recorded as having sat in the temple for three days astounding the Jewish teachers with his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. For someone to say that Jesus, who, when he was about to begin his mission, opened the scroll at the words of Isaiah and read the prophecy concerning the messenger of the Lord that was prophesied to come, was illiterate, without any evidence other than what is recorded in the Bible, is talking through his hat. From where did your renowned teacher source the evidence that Jesus was Illiterate.
Question Two: Do you believe J. D. Crossan, the great teacher under who much of your study has been done, that Jesus was illiterate, and if so, what evidence do you have to support your claim.

J. D. Crossan, the great teacher under who, much of your study has been done, believes that Jesus was initially a follower of his second cousin, John the Baptist. Where in heavens name did he source the evidence to support such a ridiculous claim?

The Bible contains the only record of the first revealed meeting between John the Baptist and his cousin Jesus; John 1: 31-34; ‘I did not know who he would be, said John,------- but God, who sent me to baptise with water, had said to me, “You will see the spirit come down and stay on a man; he is the one who baptises with the Holy spirit.” I have seen it, said John, and I tell you he is the Son of God. Of course John was to later doubt if he had been correct, when in prison he sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he really was the promised Messiah or if they had to wait for another. But this passage shows clearly, that John did not know who had been chosen from among the Israelites to speak in the name of the Lord, until he saw the spirit come down in the form of a dove and stay on the man Jesus as he rose from the baptismal waters.

But when Jesus first came to his cousin to be baptised, John, knowing that Jesus was far greater than he, and who at that point in time did not yet know who the chosen one would be, said to Jesus when he came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptised by his cousin, “I have need to be baptised by thee, and thou comest to me.” Does this sound like Jesus was a follower of John? I think not.

Question 3: Do you believe J. D. Crossan, the great teacher under who much of your study has been done, that Jesus was initially a follower of John the Baptist? And if so, what evidence do you have to support your claim.

I will not be responding to any of your posts in this thread until you have given an answer to these three questions. I am sick to death of having you attacking my credibility and refusing to answer any questions, but simply claim that my beliefs do not match those of the great scholars under who much of your study has been done, and personally I would ask the question, “Who Would?” You have stated: You've already shown that you are not backed by scholars or historians. Please continue to read next post.

 

[S-word]

You have stated: You've already shown that you are not backed by scholars or historians.

Show to me where any of the historical quotes which I have made in Post 1 and 2, are incorrect and tell me if this is not taken from credible historical records? Perhaps when you said, "You've already shown that you are not backed by scholars or historians," they were just the ramblings of a delusional mind.

Herod the Great was the Roman backed King of Judea from 37 BC , to when he died at Jericho in March or April of the year of 4 BC following an unsuccessful suicide attempt shortly after the big riots in which so many families lost their live in which riots the magnificent Hellenistic city of Sepphorus suffered extensive damage.

Is this historically correct or incorrect?


By the way, you stated that your scholars believed that Jesus was born in 4 B.C. If he were searching for a child who could have been up to two years old in 4 B. C., as stated in God's word, then according to Gods word, Jesus would had to have been born in either 5 or 6 B.C. But of course you would have realised that, having read the bible so many times under the tuition of such scholars as John Dominic Crossan.


Although a practicing Jew, Herod was an Arab, the son of an Edomite named Antipater and whose mother was the daughter of a nobleman from Petra the capital of the rising Nabataean Kingdom. In 63 BC, Antipater sided with Rome when Pompey invaded Palestine and in 47 BC Julius Caesar whose mistress Cleopatra was to later bear to him a son ‘Caesarion,’ appointed Antipater procurator of Judea and bestowed Roman citizenship upon him, an honour that was inherited by ‘Herod the Great’ and his sons.

At the age of 16, Herod met his life long friend Mark Antony to who, in the year of 40 BC, on the 25TH December (An important date to remember) Cleopatra bore to mark Antony, the twins whose names are Cleopatra Selene (Moon) and Alexander Helios (Sun)

In 37 BC, the Roman senate nominated Herod as the King of Judea, a position he held for 32 years. Even after the defeat by Octavian, (who was to be known as the Emperor Augustus,) over his good friend Mark Antony at Actium (A promontory and ancient town of western Greece the ancient Hittite nation) in 31 BC in their struggle for the throne of the assassinated Julius Caesar, Octavian who knew of Herod’s love and earlier support for his now deceased friend Mark Antony, never the less knew that Herod was the one who would best rule Palestine as he himself would want it to be ruled and Herod and Augustus were to later become close friends.

During his reign, Herod the Great built many massive fortresses and splendid cities, amphitheatres, and hippodromes for the Grecian games inaugurated in honour of Augustus, but his most grandiose creation was the Temple in Jerusalem, which he wholly built from the cornerstone up. Not only did he patronize the Olympic games, as did his sons, he was to become the president of those games, which, after his death continued to enjoy the support of his sons, Archelaus, Antipas and his brother Philip

Is this historically correct or incorrect?

Herod’s descendants were not only the temporal rulers but also the spiritual rulers of Palestine or parts thereof during the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus. In his youth, Herod had married a woman named Doris, the mother of his first born son “Antipater’ who he later disinherited and killed. Because he was an Idumaean and hated by the Jews, he attempted to appease them by marrying a Jewess, Mariamne a descendant of the Maccabees family of Jewish patriots, whom he actually loved. Mariamne, who had insisted that her brother be appointed high priest, was the daughter of Salome=Alexandra an heir from the old ruling Hasmonaean line and she is not to be confused with the niece of Herod Antipas, whose name is thought to be ‘Salome,’ the daughter of Herodias the wife of Philip 1, who is considered by some scholars to be one and the same as Philip of Bethsaida, the half brother to Herod Antipas.

With the support of the Queen of Egypt ‘Cleopatra’, a close friend of the Jewess Salome/ Alexandra, (the should have been queen) of the Hasmonaean line which was defeated by Pompey, Salome attempted to have Herod ousted in favour of her grand sons, finally ‘Herod the Great,’ had Mariamne, her brother and her two sons, plus her mother and grand father all killed, although one of Mariamne’s grand sons, ‘Herod Agrippa 1’ survived to rule in Palestine from about the late 41 AD to 44 AD.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britt, ‘Philip the son of ‘Herod the Great’ was born in 20 BC of a young woman by the name of ‘Cleopatra’ not Cleopatra the Queen of Egypt who died in 30 BC, 10 years after the birth of her twins and 20 years before the birth of Philip

Is this Historically correct or incorrect? And you have the audacity to say, "You've already shown that you are not backed by scholars or historians." Night, night Buddy boy.

 

[gnostic]

If the killing of the innocents at Bethlehem happened, then why didn't Josephus Flavius mention it. Josephus wrote a considerable amount about Herod the Great's life, which included scandals, murders and betrayals - every single rumours he could find about Herod and his family, but Herod was.

Matthew was the only one of the gospel authors to write about such incidence. Luke, the only other writer to write about Jesus' birth, mentioned nothing about it. Not about the killing and not about fleeing to Egypt. Luke say that the parents even took Jesus to be circumcised at the temple when Jesus was merely 8 day old (Luke 2:21, 22-24), certainly doesn't sound like they were fugitives with infant Jesus in Egypt. Herod barely got a mention in Luke's gospel.

One of these authors are exaggerating about the events surrounding Jesus' birth. I actually think both of them have exaggerated, but Matthew made his telling more dramatic by including Herod's persecution of Jesus and his family and the 3 wise magi following a star. Luke's exaggeration come from the scene of the shepherd and the chorus of angels.

In any case, both of them can't be telling the truth. The two gospels can't be reconciled since they are told of different events.

 

[logician]

If the killing of the innocents at Bethlehem happened, then why didn't Josephus Flavius mention it. Josephus wrote a considerable amount about Herod the Great's life, which included scandals, murders and betrayals - every single rumours he could find about Herod and his family, but Herod was.

Matthew was the only one of the gospel authors to write about such incidence. Luke, the only other writer to write about Jesus' birth, mentioned nothing about it. Not about the killing and not about fleeing to Egypt. Luke say that the parents even took Jesus to be circumcised at the temple when Jesus was merely 8 day old (Luke 2:21, 22-24), certainly doesn't sound like they were fugitives with infant Jesus in Egypt. Herod barely got a mention in Luke's gospel.

One of these authors are exaggerating about the events surrounding Jesus' birth. I actually think both of them have exaggerated, but Matthew made his telling more dramatic by including Herod's persecution of Jesus and his family and the 3 wise magi following a star. Luke's exaggeration come from the scene of the shepherd and the chorus of angels.

In any case, both of them can't be telling the truth. The two gospels can't be reconciled since they are told of different events.

Also, there can have been no eyewitnesses to the birth of the supposed Jesus except the supposed Joseph and MAry, and the birth stories are NOT told as a narrative from their viewpoint, as if they were telling the story. Also, there is no historical evidence whatsoever that either MAry orJoseph existed.

 

[S-word]

If the killing of the innocents at Bethlehem happened, then why didn't Josephus Flavius mention it. Josephus wrote a considerable amount about Herod the Great's life, which included scandals, murders and betrayals - every single rumours he could find about Herod and his family, but Herod was.

Matthew was the only one of the gospel authors to write about such incidence. Luke, the only other writer to write about Jesus' birth, mentioned nothing about it. Not about the killing and not about fleeing to Egypt. Luke say that the parents even took Jesus to be circumcised at the temple when Jesus was merely 8 day old (Luke 2:21, 22-24), certainly doesn't sound like they were fugitives with infant Jesus in Egypt. Herod barely got a mention in Luke's gospel.

One of these authors are exaggerating about the events surrounding Jesus' birth. I actually think both of them have exaggerated, but Matthew made his telling more dramatic by including Herod's persecution of Jesus and his family and the 3 wise magi following a star. Luke's exaggeration come from the scene of the shepherd and the chorus of angels.

In any case, both of them can't be telling the truth. The two gospels can't be reconciled since they are told of different events.

I Believe as do many other scholars, that the Bible has but one author, and he is the indwelling spirit, “for the kingdom of God is within you,” and it is under the guidance of He who dwells behind the veil to the inner most sanctuary of His temporary Tabernacle which is the body of mankind, that all the different scribes who were under the control of the one author, wrote the different books of the bible, which mesh together like finely engineered cogs.

Because John is the only one who mentions Lazarus from the town of Bethany, are we then to believe that no such person existed, because none of the other three gospels mention him?

Because Luke is the only one who mentions that Jesus, at the age of about twelve, confounded the Jewish teachers, with his knowledge of scripture, are we to call him a liar because this particular event in the life of Jesus is not mentioned by the other three gospels?

Because Matthew is the only one who mentions that Jesus was the fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah, which states that an unmarried woman would be with child and would bear a son, who would be called, “Wonderful Counsellor,” “Mighty God,” “Eternal Father,” “Prince of Peace.” Names that have been given to the illegitimate person of Jesus, something that would have been unheard of in the Jewish society. Should we now dismiss his gospel as no more than a fabrication?

Because Luke is the only one who states that Jesus was just a two month old baby when his mother took him back to Nazareth after performing the ceremony of purification in the temple of Jerusalem, just 40 days after his birth, which is in contradiction to the majority of the so called Christian churches who believe that the family fled from Bethlehem of Judaea into the Land of Egypt, should we then change God’s Holy Word, just to accommodate the erroneous beliefs of those churches?

Because Matthew is the only one to record the visit of the wise men from the east, who studied the stars, (Astronomer/Astrologers) and who revealed to Herod the exact time that they had first sighted the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus, and that according to the time that Herod had learned from those wise men about the time that they had first sighted the star, he determined the age of the children who were to be slaughtered as two years of age and below. But because none of the other gospels mention this, we are pressured by the atheists and agnostics to reject this as a fabrication by Matthew also.

But more to the point, I believe they would have us reject all of the Holy Scriptures, and like themselves, who, because of their unbelief, are doomed to continue in the eternal cycle of life and death in the refining fires of this, the three dimensional world of matter, and cannot inherit the new eternal bodies of blinding Light as did Jesus, the first fruits to be harvested from the dead past of the immortal “Son of Man,” who comes down to give his immortal spiritual body of light that is poured out on those who believed his words as spoken through his obedient servant, who came in the name of the Lord. For as we who believe, have borne the image of the first Adam, so shall we bear the image of the second Adam, who appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus in his new body of light and revealed himself to be Jesus of Nazareth.

For I believe that these corruptible bodies of physical matter, will be translated in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, into glorious incorruptible bodies of brilliant and blinding light. But you will continue to believe that which you choose to believe, while I continue to believe, that which I must believe.

 

[S-word]

Also, there can have been no eyewitnesses to the birth of the supposed Jesus except the supposed Joseph and MAry, and the birth stories are NOT told as a narrative from their viewpoint, as if they were telling the story. Also, there is no historical evidence whatsoever that either MAry orJoseph existed.

I see that you have no real understanding, it is the story that must be believed to gain the insight that is needed, just the story old mate, just the story.

 

[Oberon]

Also, there is no historical evidence whatsoever that either MAry orJoseph existed.

Your grasp of what constitutes historical evidence is woefully flawed.

 

[fallingblood]

I only insult people such as yourself who are continuously attacking my credibility.

It attacking your credibility means that I disagree with you, then yes. However, you have continuously insulted me, as well as anyone who disagrees with you. You've insulted the sources I've stated, as well as every scholar who disagrees with you simply because they disagree with you. That is the problem.

There is a difference between reading and understanding what you have read, and believing what you have read in the Bible, and discrediting the scriptures without any evidence whatsoever.

So again you attack the idea of me reading the Bible? You've been shown wrong on two accounts, and instead of just accepting you were wrong, you continue in the same direction. I've given my evidence. You simply do not consider it evidence as you don't believe it. That is as simple as it really is. However, just because you refuse to accept the evidence I give, doesn't mean it isn't evidence.

We know you don’t you don’t believe that anything written in the bible is truth, and your main weapon is, “I don’t believe that.”

Once again, you presume wrong. I have never said that I don't believe anything in the Bible. However, I simply do not take the entire Bible as literal. Also, when have I ever used the argument that what you said has to be wrong because I don't believe that? Never. So instead of attacking me, why not simply try to debate?

So, much of your study has been done under John Dominic Crossan, has it?

That is exactly what I stated. However, before you decided to take that further, do not let that be confused as to me only studying him. I've read his opponents. I've read many other scholars as well. Much of my study has also been done under Bart D. Ehrman and John P. Meier. There are many other sources as well that I've studied, so do not make that previous statement into something that it is not

You have two entirely different genetic records written by two entirely different people,...

Yes, Crossan also believes, as every other scholar, that there is a single Joseph. Most other scholars agree that both genealogies are Joseph, the only disagreement are those who state that it is Mary's, even though that is a very small percent now. The Gospels disagree on other things in the birth story, it is not a surprise they would disagree on this point as well.

Question one: Do you honestly believe that the genealogy of Joseph the 24th descendant of Solomon from the tribe of Judah, as recorded in Matthew...

Yes, I truly believe that the two genealogies belong to one person. My evidence, talk to any scholar, any minister, any historian, pretty much anyone who has any knowledge on the Bible, and they will tell you what I told you. The only difference you will get is that a very small minority believe one of the genealogies to be Mary's. There is never any mention of a second Joseph. The only evidence you have is a genealogy. That is all you've been able to provide. However, the Bible never distinguishes between the two Josephs you are talking about. They label only one as the husband of Mary.

They do not state that one of them slept with her. They do not state that one of them divorced her. The Bible clearly states that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit, that it was a virgin birth. That is exactly what Matthew and Luke were portraying and they took a verse in Isaiah to be a prophecy of this event (even though the verse had nothing to do with prophecy, as we now know).

The burden of proof is not on me. I am backed by every scholar on this subject. I'm back by the Bible itself. What you are suggesting is a theory that is created by you. You can not find support for it by any scholar, any historian, etc.

J. D. Crossan, the great teacher under who much of your study has been done, suggests that Jesus was illiterate. Jesus who, as a child of about 12 years old....

Are you aware of literacy rates during the first century? For the Jewish community, literacy was between 1-3%. That knowledge of literacy was reserved for the upper class. A peasant, as Jesus was, simply would not have had time to learn to read, and would have had no reason to. Now, the Bible never says that Jesus was reading scripture by the age of 12. It was an oral tradition. So that could easily explain that verse. However, there becomes more of a problem. We have just one version of that story. You would assume that was a major event, yet no one else records it. Scholars agree that verse (as well as the entire birth story) were simply creations of the Gospel writers.

Part of the reason is what we know of ancient biographies. Simply, the early life was not recorded in antiquity as it was not deemed important. The likely hood that Jesus would have had just this one even recorded for his youth makes no sense. Either way though, that verse does not say or even suggest Jesus was literate.

As for the second verse you claim. There is a huge problem with that one. There is very little doubt it was a creation of Luke. The first reason is that there was no synagogue in ancient Nazareth. Nazareth was a nothing town. It was so unimportant that it was never even recorded in ancient times. For a long time, there was a theory that even suggested that Nazareth did not even exist during the time of Jesus as there was no mention.

We know now there was an actual Nazareth, but there was no synagogue. The synagogue simply was not important at that time and Jewish religion centered around the Temple. The term synagogue, during that time, referred more to a gathering. However, that is not what Luke is talking about, he is talking about a literal, physical building. So the fact that no synagogue existed puts a hole in the story.

Second, there is no such cliff as the villagers were going to throw Jesus off. Luke shows a complete unfamiliarity with Nazareth. He shows that he doesn't know much about Nazareth, if at all anything. The story already has to complete creations in it.

Finally, this story is expected from Luke. Looking at Luke's two volume set, we see a pattern. Jesus tries to teach the Jews, the Jews reject, and then, and only then, does his message go out to the gentiles. This particular story is simply showing that pattern. Also, if you closely read that verses in question though, you will see that Jesus is purposely attacking the Jews there. He even suggests that the Jews were challenging him, even though the challenge is never made.

Simply though, the verse is accepted as a creation of Luke, and not a historical event in the life of Jesus.

To sum up though, the likely hood that Jesus was literate is nearly none. There would have been no reason for him to be literate. Illiteracy was rampant among peasants, and to assume anything else about Jesus simply is not logical. The evidence (literacy rates, as well as who was literate) supports the idea that Jesus was in fact illiterate. That does not mean he was dumb or unintelligent but simply he did not read or write. Which was really not big problem.

J. D. Crossan, the great teacher under who, much of your study has been done, believes that Jesus was initially a follower of his second cousin, John the Baptist. Where in heavens name did he source the evidence to support such a ridiculous claim?

First, you are doing what I wish you would not. You are making way to much emphasis on my studies under Crossan and you are misrepresenting that fact. It is an unethical manner of debating.

As for Jesus being a follower of John, why is that so horrible? The evidence is actually quite clear. We know that John was an apocalyptic teacher. He would baptize his followers, and send them out. John was reenacting the conquest of Moses and Joshua of the Holy Land. Simply, the Jordan was not just a river, it was a strong symbol. To understand this, you have to also realize that John was not the first to do this. There was already a tradition of going out into the wilderness, and reenacting the Moses/Joshua conquering of the Holy Land. Usually this consisted of large groups marching towards the Holy Land in the expectation that God would give their land back to them. This would end up leading to those followers being killed.

John was a little different. Instead of gathering a large group and marching on the city, he baptized his followers (which was not unique with him) and sent them into the city to spread his message. Again, the hope was that God would end up giving the Holy Land back to the Jews. The act of Jesus being baptized showed that John was his leader, that Jesus was a follower of John. Which isn't too surprising because they were both apocalyptic messengers. However, they did it in a different way.

If you have read all the scholars I studied though, why not just see how Crossan supports this claim? Seems much easier.

To actually understand this though, one can not look solely at the Bible. A background must be gained. Josephus is a great source for this. In addition, understanding what an apocalyptic messenger is, as well as what the covenantal kingdom is is also a must.

Now you can complain that I'm attacking your credibility, but do not whine about it when you are guilty of the same thing. Yes, I question your credibility as you simply have not shown any. You have not supported your ideas, and argue against others by saying that they are ignorant or are false teachers and have an agenda as they don't believe in the Bible.

 

[fallingblood]

Show to me where any of the historical quotes which I have made in Post 1 and 2, are incorrect and tell me if this is not taken from credible historical records? Perhaps when you said, "You've already shown that you are not backed by scholars or historians," they were just the ramblings of a delusional mind.

And again, another personal attack. It is funny that you complain about me attacking your credibility, when you attack me personally. I see no reason for you to complain.

As I stated in my first post, I only read the beginning of what you had to say as I had seen enough. I showed how those historical quotes (especially considering the massacre of the innocents) were not supported by credible historical records, or were supported by scholars. So you are asking for something I've already done.

I Believe as do many other scholars, that the Bible has but one author, and he is the indwelling spirit, “for the kingdom of God is within you,” and it is under the guidance of He who dwells behind the veil to the inner most sanctuary of His temporary Tabernacle which is the body of mankind, that all the different scribes who were under the control of the one author, wrote the different books of the bible, which mesh together like finely engineered cogs.

Show me the evidence to support this. The majority of scholars, the vast majority, do not agree that the Bible has but one author, some indwelling spirit. I do not know of any scholar who would even suggest that. They may suggest that the Bible was inspired by God, but they also admit that it was written by many different men who had the flaws of men. That is why there are contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and complete fabrications within the Holy Book. So what you are saying here is a blatant lie, or a huge misrepresentation.

 

[Oberon]

Are you aware of literacy rates during the first century? For the Jewish community, literacy was between 1-3%.

These are guesses. There is a great deal of contradictory evidence. For example, Josephus states that for Jews it was expected for children to learn to read. Ditto for the Testament of Levi. More than their Greco-Roman neighbors, Jews had a religious literary corpus that was vital to communal functioning. Reisner in particular (although he is not alone) argued in Jesus als Lehrer that Jesus was probably literate (228-32). Even within the gospels (apart from other Jewish and Christian literature) there are suggestions of a more widespread literacy than is normally assumed.

Nazareth was a nothing town. It was so unimportant that it was never even recorded in ancient times.

This has been part of scholarship for a long time. It is no longer widely believed: "Ongoing archaeological work in Nazareth has revealed suprising evidence of stone masonry and viticulture...Portraits of Nazareth as a sleepy, isolated village are the stuff of pious imagination and hagiography, not critical study." p. 305

Evans, C. G. (2006). The Life and Teaching of Jesus. In Rogerson, J.W., & Lieu, J. M., (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, pp 301-316.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Even within the gospels (apart from other Jewish and Christian literature) there are suggestions of a more widespread literacy than is normally assumed.

This question continually captivates me. Sometimes I think that an early scribe/scholar added the stories of Jesus reading and writing to make Jesus seem more educated - imposing their ideal on Jesus.

If illiteracy was so high, why do we have such a copious amount of early Christian literature??

They were sending letters to eachother for heaven's sake - at the earliest time - and then we have all the early gnostic literature and then the "church fathers" after that.

 

[fallingblood]

These are guesses. There is a great deal of contradictory evidence. For example, Josephus states that for Jews it was expected for children to learn to read. Ditto for the Testament of Levi. More than their Greco-Roman neighbors, Jews had a religious literary corpus that was vital to communal functioning. Reisner in particular (although he is not alone) argued in Jesus als Lehrer that Jesus was probably literate (228-32). Even within the gospels (apart from other Jewish and Christian literature) there are suggestions of a more widespread literacy than is normally assumed.

What evidence do we have though that Jesus was literate though? And whether or not was he, does it matter?

Crossan gives a nice detail about illiteracy, but I think this article, Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the first century C.E. goes quite far in suggesting that literacy was not that high. There certainly is debate, but in the end, I do not think it is that important of a point. I lean to Jesus being illiterate, but it is not a big deal.

What evidence though is there that Jesus was literate? The Gospels, if looked at critically, do not offer much support.

This has been part of scholarship for a long time. It is no longer widely believed: "Ongoing archaeological work in Nazareth has revealed suprising evidence of stone masonry and viticulture...Portraits of Nazareth as a sleepy, isolated village are the stuff of pious imagination and hagiography, not critical study." p. 305

Evans, C. G. (2006). The Life and Teaching of Jesus. In Rogerson, J.W., & Lieu, J. M., (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, pp 301-316.

There is no literary evidence, outside of the Bible, that Nazareth existed. That in itself is worth noting. It is not until after the death of Jesus, that Nazareth begins to grow because of the story of Jesus. Yes, there is evidence of stone masonry; however, from what I've studied, it is shown to be from a later time period. At the first century layer, as far as I've seen, there really is no evidence of anything of much importance. The first century layer suggests that Nazareth was a nothing town. It certainly was not isolated, as Sepphoris was only a few miles away, but I see no evidence to suggest at the time of Jesus, Nazareth was anything more than a hamlet, a place of no real importance (as is why it is not mentioned in literary work outside of the Bible during that time).

 

[fallingblood]

This question continually captivates me. Sometimes I think that an early scribe/scholar added the stories of Jesus reading and writing to make Jesus seem more educated - imposing their ideal on Jesus.

If illiteracy was so high, why do we have such a copious amount of early Christian literature??

They were sending letters to eachother for heaven's sake - at the earliest time - and then we have all the early gnostic literature and then the "church fathers" after that.

How much of the literature came from the first century? Not much at all. We have Paul writing letters (we can assume that to the congregations that he's writing to, there is at least one literate person). We have the four Gospels. Yet, if literacy was higher, wouldn't it be assumed that someone would have written down the story of Jesus sooner than 4 decades after he died? Why did they settle just for oral tradition?

How much literature do we have though? The church fathers would have been learned men, but there were few of them. Much of the writings we have from the gnostics come from the middle of the second century, to the third century (or in some other cases, much later). So it was not as if there was this massive writing campaign. The literature that we received was produced over the course of hundreds of years (most in the first couple hundred). This does not suggest high literacy rates. It suggests the opposite, that the culture was based on oral tradition, and that is why it was not written down until much later.

It is not to suggest that there is no literacy at all. There definitely was; however, it was mostly reserved for the upper class. The fact that we have few pieces of literature, much of which is done by the same people (for instance, the early church fathers, and then Paul) points more towards limited literacy. There were learned individuals, but there is little to suggest that there was wide literacy.

 

[Oberon]

What evidence do we have though that Jesus was literate though? And whether or not was he, does it matter?

Not much. Directly, Jesus frequently asks, "have you not read?/ουκ ανέγνωτε" coming from anagi(g)nosko meaning "to read." Additionally, the parable of Lk 16.6-7 assumes a basic writing ability common even to lower classes.

Outside of direct evidence within the gospels, there are various studies contradicting the position that illiteracy was as high is is sometimes thought within the Jewish world. Unlike the Greeks and the Romans (whence come the basis so many studies on jewish illiteracy), the Jews centered their lives around written documents, and as ancient sources like Josephus show us, it was common and expected for many to be given basic instruction in order to read these sources. Finally, there is evidence of widespread production of writing in and around Jesus' day by all types, as well as the production of scrolls in communities. From both primary sources like Josephus and from the proliferation of texts themselves, it seems hardly credible to suppose only the elite could write. After all, the greek of the gospels is not much of a "literary" greek (compared even to Josephus or Plutarch). Mark especially is poorly written and simple, and hardly the mark of extensive or elite education.

Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the first century C.E. goes quite far in suggesting that literacy was not that high.

The problem with the article is that it largely ignores a central and import fact that makes Israel different from places like largely illiterate Rome or Europe. Studying the torah was central even to village life, and therefore even in poor, agricultural villages an impetus was their to teach the lower classes rudimentary reading and writing skills.

There is no literary evidence, outside of the Bible, that Nazareth existed. That in itself is worth noting.

Not as noteworthy as you suppose. Are records are sparse for all periods of the ancient world. There are indeed several surveys of Israel which do not include Nazareth, but this hardly means much given the discoveries from archaeology.

It is not until after the death of Jesus, that Nazareth begins to grow because of the story of Jesus. Yes, there is evidence of stone masonry; however, from what I've studied, it is shown to be from a later time period.

This position is no longer in line with archaeological research. There is too much evidence of activity in and around Jesus' day, as Craig notes, to hold on to the concept of Nazareth as "nothing town."

The first century layer suggests that Nazareth was a nothing town.

Not really. It certainly wasn't a city or bustling metropolis. But the evidence of viticulture, olive and wine presses, and so forth (see e.g. Laughlin, John. (2005) Fifty Major Cities of the Bible. London: Routledge) indicate something more than a "nothing town." Archaeology is unfortunately hampered by the fact that modern Nazareth is occupied, but what we do know, as Craig states, is (again) Portraits of Nazareth as a sleepy, isolated village are the stuff of pious imagination and hagiography, not critical study."

It certainly was not isolated, as Sepphoris was only a few miles away, but I see no evidence to suggest at the time of Jesus, Nazareth was anything more than a hamlet, a place of no real importance (as is why it is not mentioned in literary work outside of the Bible during that time).

Certainly there is nothing to suggest that Nazareth itself during Jesus' day was important on a large scale. But this doesn't mean it was an unknown, backwards town with little in the way of culture or economic activity. Again, it wasn't a city, but that doesn't make it a "nothing town."

 

[Oberon]

"Since the nineties, excavations less than half a mile from the center of first-century Nazareth reveal some challenging structures. A winepress has been exposed, and beautifully constructed stone-wall terraces are now visible. Most importantly, three circular stone towers only about fifty feet apart now rise majestically above the rocky terrain. These cannot be fortifications; they seem related to a vineyard. pg. 38

Charlesworth, J. H. (2006). Jesus Research and Archaeology: A New Perspective. in Jesus and Archaeology. Charlesworth, J. H. (ed). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 11-63.

 

[fallingblood]

I can accept, in this case, that Nazareth may be more then I refer to it as, or implied it as. I do this simply because in the scheme of things, it's a little point. My point was more centering on whether or not Nazareth would have a physical synagogue. As far as I know, there have been no synagogues found in the Galilee area during the first century or earlier. I can only remember one even being found in the Jewish homeland that dates to that time.

I think we would both agree that Nazareth was nothing of real importance. Some economic activity would be assumed, but it would be by no stretch of the imagination some thing that was vital to the area. And I think we could possibly agree that during the first century, there would have been no physical synagogue (or temple). A gathering place most certainly, but no synagogue in a traditional sense.

 

[Oberon]

As far as I know, there have been no synagogues found in the Galilee area during the first century or earlier.

"While synagogues dot the Galilean landscape in the third and fourth centuries CE, 11 no undisputed synagogue remains from the first century CE have been found in Galilee (though, as we shall see, a strong claim has been issued that a structure in Capernaum was a first-century synagogue, and a less persuasive claim for a structure in Magdala)." p. 66
Chancey, M. A. (2002) Myth of a Gentile Galilee : The Population of Galilee and New Testament Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The problem is the nature of the synagogue itself: "No pre-70 source addresses the nature or functions of the Judaean synagogue systematically. In contrast to the Temple, the synagogue merited relatively little attention; we have few sources on how synagogues functioned, where they were located, or how they looked— ..." p. 64

Levine, L. I. (2000) Ancient Synagogue : The First Thousand Years. CT: Yale University Press, 2000.

In other words, even without the normal difficulties in archaeological excavations, we wouldn't necessarily no a pre-70 synagogue if we sat right on top it. It could be a simple as the house of some village elder.

I think we would both agree that Nazareth was nothing of real importance.

Fair enough.

And I think we could possibly agree that during the first century, there would have been no physical synagogue (or temple). A gathering place most certainly, but no synagogue in a traditional sense.

Ironic choice of words, given that synagogue comes from the greek "coming together." The fact is, we don't have a clear idea of what "the traditional" sense of the synagogue was in and around Jesus' day. Certainly, there were synagogues long before him, but these likely began because of the destruction of the temple and the diaspora. In Jesus' day, with the temple rebuilt, the necessity of a clearly demarcated place of worship with all the trimmings would be there.

 

[Oberon]

Addendum & Caveat to my post immediately above:

In the post above, and previous posts, I have been arguing against certain points made by fallingblood. This could be construed as a defense of S-Word's take on both the NT in general and the birth narratives specifically. It isn't.

To make my own view clear, I believe that if the birth narratives are not complete fabrications, they are almost certainly largely so.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How much of the literature came from the first century? Not much at all. We have Paul writing letters (we can assume that to the congregations that he's writing to, there is at least one literate person). We have the four Gospels. Yet, if literacy was higher, wouldn't it be assumed that someone would have written down the story of Jesus sooner than 4 decades after he died? Why did they settle just for oral tradition?

How much literature do we have though? The church fathers would have been learned men, but there were few of them. Much of the writings we have from the gnostics come from the middle of the second century, to the third century (or in some other cases, much later). So it was not as if there was this massive writing campaign. The literature that we received was produced over the course of hundreds of years (most in the first couple hundred). This does not suggest high literacy rates. It suggests the opposite, that the culture was based on oral tradition, and that is why it was not written down until much later.

It is not to suggest that there is no literacy at all. There definitely was; however, it was mostly reserved for the upper class. The fact that we have few pieces of literature, much of which is done by the same people (for instance, the early church fathers, and then Paul) points more towards limited literacy. There were learned individuals, but there is little to suggest that there was wide literacy.