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

[blü 2]

1. What is your view?
2. What is this "informed basis"?

The view I stated.

On the basis of my reading about such matters.

 

[firedragon]

The view I stated.

On the basis of my reading about such matters.

Well, the view you stated to "starting from history" was that if that is the case, they would start with something like mythicism. So I asked you to read that part in the OP. Maybe you didnt.

Well. You are wrong.

What scholars do in this case is, as I have already said in the OP, they take the history as we know, and plug in the character into it to understand what we possibly could of a historical Jesus.

So if your reading has taught you otherwise, and that reading is what you call "informed basis", and you dont have the humility to speak and discuss then its your prerogative.

"Go well".

 

[Colt]

The dating we use today is Anno Domini. This is the year 2021. And that's based on the birth of Jesus. Although if the correct birth year of Jesus is to be pursued, it should be as many confess, 2025. This shows one thing, and that is how much of importance this man, or man God has vested upon him.

Finding the real Jesus is not a path that suddenly emerged in the 20th century. Rather, since probably the beginning of all of this. As you all know there were many writings neglected as apocrypha in the Nag Hamadi findings. Oh the writings about Jesus are huge. Yet, who is the real Jesus?

Does the writing of Josephus that passingly mentions Jesus, the brother of James, they called the Messiah signify that there indeed was at least a man people had called the Messiah? Well, how about the well known forged advertisement for Jesus in Josephus and his antiquities when someone tried to insert the miracle worker attribute to Jesus? In order to construct the Jesus they want into history, did not these people actually cause harm by casting doubt when people found out that it was all false?

Some scholars who believe Jesus existed as the majority of them do, do believe that it is almost human creativity to try and construct the real life of Jesus Christ based on the theological writings. Vis a Vis, the New Testament. Some stories like the Pericope Adultarae which is a known interpolation into the Gospel of John have been the point of scrutiny for many theologians and apologists in their effort to make it a true story. Whoever inserted it first, may have taken this story from someone like Eusebius who mentions a woman of sin in a so called gospel hebrews that Papias spoke of in the early 2nd century. But this person tried this insertion too late. And some evangelical apologists use this as an argument. Then you get an argument about the protogospel of James where some people like like W. Petersen argue the Pericope Adultarae existed due to a phrase 16:2. Its not good enough and puts them as "hook or crook attempts". When people make such arguments to try and make a latter insertion valid it puts the authenticity at huge peril.

Critical scholars take the words of Josephus associating James with Jesus who they called the Messiah as the only historically available statement. Which has prompted some scholars like the unorthodox muslim Reza Aslan to take the approach of consulting many many scholars, their works, the recorded history of the Romans, the setting of the time and place and plug Jesus into that in order to figure out a Jesus that is historical. Now this Jesus would obviously contradict the Jesus of Christian Theology or as a matter of fact, any Jesus of any theology.

Jesus is known today by most as a carpenter. Was he? Tekton as anyone knows does not mean carpenter unless you add "wood" into the word. A Tekton of stone would be a stone worker. A Tekton of iron would be an iron worker. Which Jesus is the real Jesus?

While Judaism rejects Jesus, Islam embraces him as a prophet of God. A Messenger. The Quran is a 7th century document, thus being 7 centuries apart from Jesus as a historical document it can be argued that it is not valid. A curious case is the statement in this book that Jesus was not crucified nor killed by them as in the Jews but only made to appear as they did. The usual opposition to this is that "why would God make it appear as if they crucified him"?? Well, the text does not say that it was God who made it appear as such. So that's a cloven assumption. It also denies that the Jews killed him which means it could always be the Romans who did, and that's the position of scholars anyway, that it was the Romans who killed him for sedition.

There were many Christs in that era. Many people called themselves Christ. And many of them were killed by the Romans and their movements crushed. Yep, it was for sedition. Judas the Galilean, Hezekiah, Simon of Peraea, Menahem, Simon son of Kochba, Simonson of Giora, the Samaritan, Theudas, Athronges, etc. Thus, was Jesus a significant figure in comparison to everyone else at that time, or was he just one of them and nothing special?? Well it certainly seems like it because the "decadent" Josephus would make him a little significant if he was wouldn't he? Or did he subdue Jesus on purpose? Also if Jesus was not a significant character how in the world is he the only venerated Christ of the time, though he was also killed in the same manner like everyone else?

Who is the real Jesus?

In 1955 In Chicago Illinois another massive revelation of material occurred. We now have the entire life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as narrated by celestial beings on earth at the time. It explains a LOT!

Home

 

[firedragon]

In 1955 In Chicago Illinois another massive revelation of material occurred.

Please show that material.

 

[blü 2]

Well, the view you stated to "starting from history" was that if that is the case, they would start with something like mythicism. So I asked you to read that part in the OP. Maybe you didnt.

Well. You are wrong.

What scholars do in this case is, as I have already said in the OP, they take the history as we know, and plug in the character into it to understand what we possibly could of a historical Jesus.

So if your reading has taught you otherwise, and that reading is what you call "informed basis", and you dont have the humility to speak and discuss then its your prerogative.

"Go well".

Thank you. I shall.

Meanwhile, you may like to consult your mirror and wonder why you feel compelled to proceed by ad homs, put downs, condescension and aggro instead of factual debate.

But that of course is completely a matter for you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Who is the real Jesus?

Peter was asked this and the answer is simple.

Jesus was Christ.

Regards Tony

 

[Colt]

Please show that material.

Its free online and its not a religion, at this point it is what it is.

Urantia Book Online

 

[firedragon]

Thank you. I shall.

Meanwhile, you may like to consult your mirror and wonder why you feel compelled to proceed by ad homs, put downs, condescension and aggro instead of factual debate.

But that of course is completely a matter for you.

Great. Cheers. Pls read the OP.

 

[firedragon]

Its free online and its not a religion, at this point it is what it is.

Urantia Book Online

Oh yes. You've spoken of it before I think, and I've read it. Thanks. I dont consider this at any valid historical value because it seems to be written arbitrarily.

 

[rational experiences]

A human is a human.

Humans born as babies. Grow back into adult parents life. Own their own adult thinking.

Think from baby to parent human.

Think Jesus.

From human baby to man adult not a human father. Had no wife single man.

First two original humans our great grandparents by multiple lives.

A long time deceased.

Conscious awareness. The original two first parents of everyone today deceased. A baby conscious psyche claim. I returned back to life from deceased parents

A human brain memory glitch.

Ignored two natural modern day parents who had sex to be a human baby.

Now if you say but Jesus was never a human was a science statement about time 0. And the heavens spirit only.

Then you cannot include human man living. Attacked life sacrificed.

As you would be making a false claim.

Did a human inferred 0 zero moment exist rationally?

No.

All spirit heavens gas mass as gases existed. Natural light above us existed also.

All states. Gases in burning state. Gases not In a burning state. Natural heavens never owned a zero.heavens a natural mass.

If science claims as a human how another human witnessed in phenomena states. Named it stigmata. Said it occurred and disappeared as magic.

Then humans saw it occur.
They talked about why it occurred.
And said it was a chosen human act of evil as brothers.

Being a science statement.

As 0 zero is a human science inferred teaching.

A moment when the day went dark.

Meaning burning gases as sacrificed spirit was stopped.

Which would be a hot space black moment as gases were previously burning.

Immaculate gases cold clear.

A one of evil moment in our natural earth heavens caused by scientists.

A teaching.

Natural spirit gases as rest of mass never went anywhere.

Science never spoke on behalf of natural mass.

 

[Brian2]

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

Luke tells us he got his info from witnesses and people who had been around from the beginning.
John and Matthew are supposed to have been apostles.
Mark was a companion of Peter.

 

[Brian2]

What about the epistle of Barnabas?

I have not seen that in a Catholic Bible.

 

[firedragon]

I have not seen that in a Catholic Bible.

Well. It was.

 

[Brian2]

Well. It was.

It and the Shepherd of Herma and maybe the Didache appeared in some early writings and manuscripts which may have contained books that would later be seen as canonical. It seems that canonicity for the New Testament was partly on the basis of whether a work was apostolic or written under the authority of an apostle. The Epistle of Barnabas does not pass the tests even though some may have seen it as worthy to be included.

 

[firedragon]

It and the Shepherd of Herma and maybe the Didache appeared in some early writings and manuscripts which may have contained books that would later be seen as canonical. It seems that canonicity for the New Testament was partly on the basis of whether a work was apostolic or written under the authority of an apostle. The Epistle of Barnabas does not pass the tests even though some may have seen it as worthy to be included.

Brother. With all due respect, I dont go with simple maybes. And no, there is no indication that the Didache was in a canon. Cant just come up with things and say "maybe".

The epistle of Barnabas was in the earliest Bible. So was the Shepard of Hermas. And you say one doesnt pass the test now which I wonder if was the same arbitrary method the canon was devised by. The inspired word is decided arbitrarily by people.

 

[Brian2]

Brother. With all due respect, I dont go with simple maybes. And no, there is no indication that the Didache was in a canon. Cant just come up with things and say "maybe".

The epistle of Barnabas was in the earliest Bible. So was the Shepard of Hermas. And you say one doesnt pass the test now which I wonder if was the same arbitrary method the canon was devised by. The inspired word is decided arbitrarily by people.

The books that early Christians used were considered helpful and orthodox by people who used them. They are still seen as helpful.
Then came the "official" canon for Christians and I am told that the methods of choice were not arbitrary.
Christians usually would say that just as the scriptures were inspired by God, so also the selection of the canon was also inspired by God.

 

[firedragon]

The books that early Christians used were considered helpful and orthodox by people who used them. They are still seen as helpful.
Then came the "official" canon for Christians and I am told that the methods of choice were not arbitrary.
Christians usually would say that just as the scriptures were inspired by God, so also the selection of the canon was also inspired by God.

So are you saying all three of the earliest complete Bibles we have found ever are all not "official canon"? So until the 5th century at least, Christendom never had an official canon because all of the Bibles we know of at the time had books not in the modern Bibles? So God waited for how many centuries after Jesus to "Inspire" some people in Rome to decide what the "REAL WORD OF GOD IS"?

 

[Brian2]

So are you saying all three of the earliest complete Bibles we have found ever are all not "official canon"? So until the 5th century at least, Christendom never had an official canon because all of the Bibles we know of at the time had books not in the modern Bibles? So God waited for how many centuries after Jesus to "Inspire" some people in Rome to decide what the "REAL WORD OF GOD IS"?

The Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas books added at the end of the Sinaiticus Manuscript and some church Fathers thought they were inspired and quoted from them but I guess the selection of the official canon meant they were discarded as scripture from the first century or as documents
written by apostles or authorised by apostles.
In the names that Origen used as the writers of the New Testament, these are not included.
The books of the NT were collected and put together before the official lists but it is just that these collections were not officially recognised and accepted by the Church.

 

[firedragon]

The Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas books added at the end of the Sinaiticus Manuscript and some church Fathers thought they were inspired and quoted from them but I guess the selection of the official canon meant they were discarded as scripture from the first century or as documents
written by apostles or authorised by apostles.
In the names that Origen used as the writers of the New Testament, these are not included.
The books of the NT were collected and put together before the official lists but it is just that these collections were not officially recognised and accepted by the Church.

Im happy that you have done some research prior to responding.

But tell me. You said earlier that only some books were taken off the OT. So at that time you were wrong. Now you have accepted there were more books from the NT as well. Thats good.

Nevertheless, so tell me. When was the canon finalised, by whom, and how did God inspire this person who finally decided, and how do you know God inspired him?

 

[Brian2]

Im happy that you have done some research prior to responding.

But tell me. You said earlier that only some books were taken off the OT. So at that time you were wrong. Now you have accepted there were more books from the NT as well. Thats good.

Nevertheless, so tell me. When was the canon finalised, by whom, and how did God inspire this person who finally decided, and how do you know God inspired him?

I don't know where I said that only some books were taken off the OT. If I said that I would have meant that the Protestant list of OT books is different to the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Cannons and the Protestants removed what they considered apocryphal books. This lest an OT with the same list of books as the Jewish Canon.
The development of the New Testament canon was an evolution, with different places accepting some books that others did not. However the basic core of the New Testament was there in the 2nd century and the development of a definite canon was necessary because of the proliferation of agnostic writings.
The criteria of acceptance changed over time it seems but the original criteria was apostolic authenticity. Even this was disagreed on with a number of books, but the main ones were accepted pretty early.
It was not a one person job to decide and finalise the canon even though we can see at various times in the first few centuries, the state of the list of accepted books by various church fathers. The New Testament books accepted and used can also be seen in the quotes used from them by various church fathers.
It is a matter of Christian faith that God inspired both the writing of and collection of the books He wanted to be in the Christian Bible.