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

[oldbadger]

You mean after the crucifixion?

After the crucifixion that didn't kill him.

 

[firedragon]

After the crucifixion that didn't kill him.

There are no appearance accounts after the crucifixion in the Gospel of Mark mate. If you are referring to the long ending of Mark, you know that those verses are one of the most unanimously confirmed latter additions that have no validity in any of the early Bibles.

 

[oldbadger]

There are no appearance accounts after the crucifixion in the Gospel of Mark mate. If you are referring to the long ending of Mark, you know that those verses are one of the most unanimously confirmed latter additions that have no validity in any of the early Bibles.

Read post 39 again.

 

[firedragon]

Read post 39 again.

Its not necessary.

Anyway, you consider the Markan depiction of Jesus to be the real Jesus ( I presume without any of the post crucifixion accounts). Is that your position?

 

[blü 2]

No. Philippians says "EESOU" which is an address of EESOUS.

So bottomline of your post is that you are not sure if this Jesus existed ever and the rest are just speculation.

As I said, there's presently no clincher that Jesus existed; and as for the evidence, it's a mess, overlaid with manifest fictions and opinions.

If I were to make a case for an historical Jesus, I'd start with the fact that in all four gospels, he always speaks aggressively about his family and his mother, the sole exception being John's crucifixion scene. (Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26). (Historians recognize the 'criterion of embarrassment'.)

 

[oldbadger]

Its not necessary.

Anyway, you consider the Markan depiction of Jesus to be the real Jesus ( I presume without any of the post crucifixion accounts). Is that your position?

More or less.
But the other gospels do provide very useful info ....
But Mark provides the basic story

 

[firedragon]

If J of A was getting him out of Palestine then they needed to get to the ports of Sidon or Tyre. Whether he reached Gaul, Kashmir or Cornwall I don't know but as you probably know claims exist for all those places having received Jesus.

Out fo respect to your request, I dont know what you refer to as J of A, and these Lebanon episodes, and his subsequent travels are all interesting theories. I have no expertise on those theories yet I do know they are great legends. There are always possibilities.

 

[Brian2]

The Gnostic gospels and lost Gospels paint a different picture of Jesus and one who was married to Mary, so which set of Gospels will you believe? How about The Book Of Mormon or the Catholic bible are they right?

The Catholic Bible is the same as the Protestant Bible but contains some extra books in the OT which the Protestants and Jews do not include.

 

[Brian2]

Yeah. But this thread is not about a Jesus of faith.

A made up picture of Jesus is a Jesus of faith. The stories from witnesses are not made up.

 

[Brian2]

So your point is that its a conspiracy or a hypocrisy right?

No, my point is that people make up stories about Jesus and neglect what witnesses have told us.

 

[oldbadger]

Out fo respect to your request, I dont know what you refer to as J of A, and these Lebanon episodes, and his subsequent travels are all interesting theories. I have no expertise on those theories yet I do know they are great legends. There are always possibilities.

J of A .... Joseph of Arimathea.
Sidon and Tyre were in Palestine and a days walk from Galilee. Jesus used to go there .
The Phoenicians sailed from those ports two thousand years before Christ to Cornwall. For tin.

J of A was a merchant and the Cornish tradition has it that he brought Jesus there.
Kashmir had a tradition that Jesus is buried there
Gaul has a tradition that Magdalene went there and had Jesus's child, s girl.

 

[firedragon]

As I said, there's presently no clincher that Jesus existed; and as for the evidence, it's a mess, overlaid with manifest fictions and opinions.

If I were to make a case for an historical Jesus, I'd start with the fact that in all four gospels, he always speaks aggressively about his family and his mother, the sole exception being John's crucifixion scene. (Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26). (Historians recognize the 'criterion of embarrassment'.)

Criterion of embarrassment does not make it historical or real. It makes it authentic. What it could do in analysis is authenticate what the original author actually wrote in this case. If Mark was written 30 years after Jesus, the disconnect has to be taken into account. Also the anonymity of the writer has to be thought of. Also embarrassment today might not be embarrassment at the time of the writer. Also you should consider the authority of the main character of the writing and context. Criterions like this are not used in isolation. They are always used with other criteria which are not said here.

 

[blü 2]

Criterion of embarrassment does not make it historical or real. It makes it authentic. What it could do in analysis is authenticate what the original author actually wrote in this case. If Mark was written 30 years after Jesus, the disconnect has to be taken into account. Also the anonymity of the writer has to be thought of. Also embarrassment today might not be embarrassment at the time of the writer. Also you should consider the authority of the main character of the writing and context. Criterions like this are not used in isolation. They are always used with other criteria which are not said here.

I was putting it as a possibility, a what-if, rather than as a statement of my position.

On the other hand, I can't think of a better alternative starting point.

 

[firedragon]

J of A .... Joseph of Arimathea.
Sidon and Tyre were in Palestine and a days walk from Galilee. Jesus used to go there .
The Phoenicians sailed from those ports two thousand years before Christ to Cornwall. For tin.

J of A was a merchant and the Cornish tradition has it that he brought Jesus there.
Kashmir had a tradition that Jesus is buried there
Gaul has a tradition that Magdalene went there and had Jesus's child, s girl.

Again, there are many legends OB. I agree. If this is the real Jesus please do propose it and it will be an interesting matter.

 

[firedragon]

No, my point is that people make up stories about Jesus and neglect what witnesses have told us.

What exactly do you mean by saying witnesses? Who exactly and what documents are you speaking of?

 

[Marcion]

Alright. You believe that including John into the synoptic problem and the so called "possible" explanations of the relationship thus creating a new Q lite has the real Jesus in it??

In the Three Source Hypothesis it is accepted that at some stage a later redactor of gLuke took material from gMatthew, which explains the Matthew type sayings in our present version of gLuke as well as the minor agreements of Luke and Matthew against Mark.
gJohn plays no role in solving the synoptic problem.

The Holtzmann-Gundry Solution to the Synoptic Problem (Three Source Hypothesis)

 

[firedragon]

In the Three Source Hypothesis it is accepted that at some stage a later redactor of gLuke took material from gMatthew, which explains the Matthew type sayings in our present version of gLuke as well as the minor agreements of Luke and Matthew against Mark.
gJohn plays no role in solving the synoptic problem.

The Holtzmann-Gundry Solution to the Synoptic Problem (Three Source Hypothesis)

So not the Qlite or is it a combination the three source hypothesis and Qlite?

I think I asked you already. Maybe you didnt see it.

 

[firedragon]

I was putting it as a possibility, a what-if, rather than as a statement of my position.

On the other hand, I can't think of a better alternative starting point.

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.

 

[firedragon]

The Catholic Bible is the same as the Protestant Bible but contains some extra books in the OT which the Protestants and Jews do not include.

What about the epistle of Barnabas?

 

[Marcion]

So not the Qlite or is it a combination the three source hypothesis and Qlite?

I think I asked you already. Maybe you didnt see it.

Q-lite is a different version of Q that follows if you prefer the Three Source Hypothesis over the Two Source Hypothesis.

But even Q-lite is flexible because if you don't believe in spirituality you will exclude many sayings from Q-lite that someone like me would include.

Most people have a hard time to distinguish between sayings that are spiritual philosophy (tantric) and sayings that are religious (Christian), actually they don't understand the fundamental difference between the two.
Seeing Jesus as a tantric type master is not the same as seeing him as a Son of God or a Jewish messiah.
The first follows from a deeper understanding of the sayings of Q-lite, the others follow from the Christian texts that overlay Q-lite in the New Testament.