Why do we know so little about Jesus?

[Oberon]

All Lourdes proves is that people believe in the power of a heavenly Christ.

You are completely (and probably deliberately) missing the point. The issue is not whether or not miracles are real or ghosts or witchcraft or magic or whatever. The issue is whether a historical event can occur which people watching interpret as a miracle or whatever. You said "All we have of Jesus is the impossible." Even if that were true, which it isn't, it wouldn't necessarily mean that Jesus is unhistorical or mythical.

Take Matt. 9:27-31. Obviously, this is an event which is magical or a miracle or whatever. Let's assume a scientific perspective and say that obviously Jesus didn't make any blind person see by some magical or holy power.

That doesn't mean that two people who were or claimed to be blind did not claim to see as a result of something Jesus did, and that bystanders interpreted it as a miracle.

I am not saying this particular even happened, simply that even if we only had miracle stories they could very well be stories of actual events people thought were miracles, whether they were the placebo effect or the tricks of a charlatan or whatever.

One can disbelieve or believe that the events reported as miracles in the gospels were miracles or not, or that they happened or not. But one cannot reasonably dispute that events like those in the gospels can happen in such a way that someone witnessing could interpret them as miracles, given that people have done so throughout recorded history.

So, I'll ask again, when are you going to start refuting the basic arguments I offered "one at a time?"

 

[arimoff]

Jesus was born of a virgin to this earth, but was already alive in Heaven BEFORE he came to the earth.

Sounds more Roman or Greek then Monotheistic lol.

 

[sojourner]

Sounds more Roman or Greek then Monotheistic lol.

Since the gospel writers obviously work to equate Jesus miraculous birth with that of Augustus, it's not surprising that it "sounds Roman."

 

[Oberon]

Since the gospel writers obviously work to equate Jesus miraculous birth with that of Augustus, it's not surprising that it "sounds Roman."

I wouldn't say obviously.

 

[Dunemeister]

I wouldn't say obviously.

How about "arguably"?

 

[Oberon]

How about "arguably"?

I'd go with that. There is definitely a parallel, the only question being whether the gospel tradition actually consciously or unconsciously borrowed from the Augustine tradition. As the tradition of Jesus' virgin birth is attested to independently by Matthew and Luke (and these were not related to each other in that neither one likely borrowed or used the other), we can reasonably place this tradition early than either, though how early is up for debate. It's not in Mark, but that doesn't mean Mark wasn't aware of it. Paul says too little about Jesus' life to make any claim that he wasn't aware of such a tradition simply because he doesn't mention it.

In Jesus' day and local, we don't see a whole lot of influence (comparatively) from hellenization. Even Sepphoris, prior to the 70s, shows little archaeological evidence of roman/gentile presence. Obviously, there was borrowing and interaction, and by the time Matthew and Luke were written, the Jesus sect itself had a significant (if not majority) non-jewish population. But given the uncertainty of the origins of the virgin birth tradition, and the amount of hellenistic influence in the tradition at that time, as well as other factors, I would certainly say "arguably" is better than "obviously."

 

[sojourner]

Well, I think it's pretty obvious, especially given the geneaology parallels between Matthew and the Augustinian sect, as well as the fairly obvious rip-offs of early Xian artwork based on earlier Augustinian artwork.

 

[dogsgod]

Mark could not have known about the virgin birth. Mary and the children come to collect Jesus because they say he is out of his mind. Mark 3:21 How could Mary have forgotten that God was the father of Jesus, that he of all people would have the power to drive out demons? Of course Matthew and Luke omit that part.

 

[Oberon]

Well, I think it's pretty obvious, especially given the geneaology parallels between Matthew and the Augustinian sect, as well as the fairly obvious rip-offs of early Xian artwork based on earlier Augustinian artwork.

The geneology is clearly to link the messiah to a royal line. I don't think it has anything to do with Augustine. And how early is this artwork you are talking about? 80s?

 

[Oberon]

Mark could not have known about the virgin birth. Mary and the children come to collect Jesus because they say he is out of his mind. Mark 3:21

That's not what Mark 3:21 says: και ακούσαντες οι παρ᾿ αυτου εξῆλθον κρατησαι αυτόν· ἔλεγον γαρ ὅτι εξέστη/ and having heard those near/around him came to seize him.

Now, "those near him/hoi par' autou probably implies family. But it could be anything from Mother and brothers to cousins and uncles to family friends.

 

[dogsgod]

That's not what Mark 3:21 says: και ακούσαντες οι παρ᾿ αυτου εξῆλθον κρατησαι αυτόν· ἔλεγον γαρ ὅτι εξέστη/ and having heard those near/around him came to seize him.

Now, "those near him/hoi par' autou probably implies family. But it could be anything from Mother and brothers to cousins and uncles to family friends.

Some translations say family, some say friends, but all agree Jesus was nuts. Apparently no one, whether family or friends, had known of his miraculous birth. It was a later Christian development.


New International Version (©1984)
When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind.
"New Living Translation (©2007)
When his family heard what was happening, they tried to take him away. "He's out of his mind," they said.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses."
International Standard Version (©2008)
When his family heard about it, they went to restrain him, because they kept saying, "He's out of his mind!"
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
When his family heard about it, they went to get him. They said, "He's out of his mind!"
King James Bible
And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
American King James Version
And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
American Standard Version
And when his friends heard it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
Bible in Basic English
And when his friends had news of it, they went out to get him, saying, He is off his head.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is become mad.
Darby Bible Translation
And his relatives having heard of it went out to lay hold on him, for they said, He is out of his mind.
English Revised Version
And when his friends heard it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
Webster's Bible Translation
And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
Weymouth New Testament
Hearing of this, His relatives came to seize Him by force, for they said, "He is out of his mind."
World English Bible
When his friends heard it, they went out to seize him: for they said, "He is insane."
Young's Literal Translation
and his friends having heard, went forth to lay hold on him, for they said that he was beside himself,



Mark 3:21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

 

[Oberon]

Some translations say family, some say friends, but all agree Jesus was nuts.

All agree that people close to the family thought he was nuts. And I can read the greek. I don't need a list of translations.

Apparently no one, whether family or friends, had known of his miraculous birth.

Again, you have an argument from silence. John doesn't contain a birth narrative, and yet obviously the story was around prior to John (unless you believe that John wrote prior to Matthew and Luke). The fact that Mark doesn't contain a birth narrative doesn't mean the story wasn't already circulating.

 

[dogsgod]

All agree that people close to the family thought he was nuts. And I can read the greek. I don't need a list of translations.

Apparently you do.

Again, you have an argument from silence. John doesn't contain a birth narrative, and yet obviously the story was around prior to John (unless you believe that John wrote prior to Matthew and Luke). The fact that Mark doesn't contain a birth narrative doesn't mean the story wasn't already circulating.

I never made that argument.

 

[Oberon]

Apparently you do.

Why? I know what hoi par' autou means. I'm not the one who included Jesus' mother in Mark 3:21 when she isn't mentioned at all.

 

[dogsgod]

Why? I know what hoi par' autou means. I'm not the one who included Jesus' mother in Mark 3:21 when she isn't mentioned at all.

Quibble over my assumption as to whom the members of Jesus family members are if you like, the point is, friends or family, no one in Mark's narration is aware of Jesus' miraculous birth, had they known they would expect that he could have cast out demons. Instead they say he's "out of his mind."

We're reading about an ancient superman, like so many others, but THIS one is historical.

 

[Oberon]

Quibble over my assumption as to whom the members of Jesus family members are if you like, the point is, friends or family, no one in Mark's narration is aware of Jesus' miraculous birth, had they known they would expect that he could have cast out demons. Instead they say he's "out of his mind."

1. That doesn't logically follow. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they all were told and thought Jesus was miraculously born. That doesn't mean that 30 years later they couldn't also think he was out of his mind. Of course, I don't think the story of the virgin birth was around during Jesus' day; I am simply pointing out your logic doesn't hold.

2. The point here is not whether or not the virgin birth is true or dates from Jesus' day, but whether or not the story is based on Augustus Caesar's birth legend. I think it is very plausible that it is, but I don't think it is "obvious."

We're reading about an ancient superman, like so many others, but THIS one is historical.

Yes, like Augustus Caesar, born of god and a virgin. When you can answer the basic arguments for historicity, including the genre of the gospels and the fact that throughout history there have been "supermen/women" credited with miracles and magic who were historical, then you can be sarcastic without appearing ignorant.

 

[dogsgod]

1. That doesn't logically follow. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they all were told and thought Jesus was miraculously born. That doesn't mean that 30 years later they couldn't also think he was out of his mind. Of course, I don't think the story of the virgin birth was around during Jesus' day; I am simply pointing out your logic doesn't hold.

Of course it logically follows. What could be more obvious? Quite simply, If they knew he was miraculously born, they would not have thought he was mad for casting out demons, his divinity would have called for it.

2. The point here is not whether or not the virgin birth is true or dates from Jesus' day, but whether or not the story is based on Augustus Caesar's birth legend. I think it is very plausible that it is, but I don't think it is "obvious."



Yes, like Augustus Caesar, born of god and a virgin. When you can answer the basic arguments for historicity, including the genre of the gospels and the fact that throughout history there have been "supermen/women" credited with miracles and magic who were historical, then you can be sarcastic without appearing ignorant.

There is more than enough unquestionable independent physical and written confirmation of Augustus Caesar. To equate the two because birth stories are applied to rulers, real as well as fictitious, is fallacious on too many levels.

 

[Oberon]

Of course it logically follows. What could be more obvious? Quite simply, If they knew he was miraculously born, they would not have thought he was mad for casting out demons, his divinity would have called for it.

Being miraculously born doesn't mean divine. And if he was casting out demons, they could have thought he was miraculously born form a demon.

There is more than enough unquestionable independent physical and written confirmation of Augustus Caesar. To equate the two because birth stories are applied to rulers, real as well as fictitious, is fallacious on too many levels.

You wouldn't know. You like wikipedia and online stuff:
How Do We Know The Jesus Existed? It is quite difficult to know where to start, because actually the evidence for Jesus is so massive that, as a historian, I want to say we have got almost as much good evidence for Jesus as for anyone in the ancient world. Obviously there are some characters from the ancient world for whom we have statues and inscriptions. On the other hand, we have statues of gods and goddesses in the ancient world too, and so you can never quite be sure. But in Jesus's case, the evidence all points firmly back to the existence of this great figure in the 20s through to around 30 of the first century. And all the evidence fits so well with what we know of the Judaism of the period (even though much of it was eventually written down a generation later) that I think there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today who doubt the existence of Jesus. There are one or two. A man called [G. A.] Wells is the only one who has made much of it recently. From time to time you get someone like J. M. Allegro, who a generation ago wrote a book on the basis of the Dead Sea Scrolls saying that Christianity was all about a cult of the sacred mushroom. No Jewish, Christian, atheist, or agnostic scholars have ever taken that seriously since. It is quite clear that in fact Jesus is a very, very well documented character of real history. So I think that question can be put to rest.

 

[Oberon]

The notion that Jesus existed at the time the gospels chose is reliant on circular reasoning because nothing independent confirms the gospels

The gospels are independent. Even if you divide them only into the synoptics and john, there is still independence. Moreover, apart from the gospels and other sources, there is still Paul and Josephus.

Finally, plenty of Greeks are only known through greek sources, and plenty of romans through latin sources. Doesn't mean they didn't exist. Jesus is known through christian sources because they are pretty much the only ones who cared.

it's presupposing an historical Jesus living at a particular time.

Paul also states that Jesus was crucified. Yet only shortly before the romans were ruling via Herod, not directly. Harldly likely he would be crucified then.

Unfortunately, all that can be safely assumed is that Pilate's time was merely retrospectively chosen by the author of Mark.

How foolish. This is one of the most important differences between the genre of the gospels and myths. Myths place events far back in time, not in a specific place and time where everyone living would know they were false.

The idea of an historical Jesus is a product of the gospels

Primarily. But then, lots of historical figures have far less upon which to base a historical reconstruction.

,

and even if Jesus was historical, he was not responsible for the spread of Christianity

Obviously. He died.

and Christ suffered in this way in order to take their suffering away.

How does Christ dying via crucifixion ease their suffering? It is a sign of roman power.

 

[sojourner]

The geneology is clearly to link the messiah to a royal line. I don't think it has anything to do with Augustine. And how early is this artwork you are talking about? 80s?

It has everything to do with Augustine. Note the subtleties. Every woman that is named in the geneaology is a "fallen woman," or a foreigner. The artwork is at least that old.