Quest For The Historical Jesus: Exercise In Futility?

How embarrassing that the last post in the Christian Sanctuary was last July on a topic that didn't seem particularly serious. In Sanctuary, we have an opportunity to express ourselves freely, quoting Scripture , if necessary. So I thought I'd try to revive this moribund forum by considering the Historical Jesus, The term comes up in the efforts of scholars to apply the methods of history to studying the man Jesus, as opposed to the "Jesus of Faith. Of course, Christians believe they were the same person, but the "Historical Jesus" abstracts out the human part of our Lord and considers what we could say about that person without resorting to claims of divinity, the supernatural and doctrinal elements . I'm talking about the Galilean who lived, preached, healed, exorcised, and was crucified in Judea some 2000 years ago. See Schweitzer's classic " The Quest for the Historical Jesus (1910). Also, Paul Barnett (1997) Jesus and the Logic of History; Darrell Bock (2002) Studyinig the Historical Jesus;Bart Ehrman (1999), Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium;David B. Gowler (2007)What Are They saying About the Historical Jesus? etc., etc

So the questioon is, assuming he existed, what was He like? Can we know antyhing about Him, His life, and His teachings that would satisfy an objective secular historian.

 

My feeling is that he was a real man.....and there is only heresay and legend to really know who he was really...like anyone else, say Shakespeare....What was he really like? without first hand knowledge, it is anyone's guess.

 

Let the mind be in us that is in christ is not a historical search.

 

Why not? Some people feel he was a real person that wandered the desert......

One can see today...how some people are elevated like some god figures.....sports people, movie stars...It seems to be in human nature to worship other people......and then with legend, things become more than what they were, too, sometimes.

 

That state of mind is in you.

 

Wel, that is true, TheDope, as it is for everyone....

 

Jesus is in my family tree. He is the First Cousin 8x Removed Of Wife Of 63th Grandfather.

Joseph of Arimathea is 7th Great Grandfather Of Wife Of 63th Great Grandfather.

 

Ari, you have the power!

 

It's a little watered down, Moony!

 

water it back up there.......!
You can.....I know you can....

 

Sigh. I tried.

 

Tried to what get a convincing argument? What can you say about the issue that you think would satisfy a secular historian? I think a secular historian wouldn't be very concerned considering the accounts we have whether or not he was a person who existed but far more concerned about whether suspected ancient documents were genuine to the time period. Why would the question even come up unless in relation to one belief or another? It is far more likely that recounted events were based on some real players, letters written etc., than that the whole genesis of the phenomena were fabricated from imagination. How do we for example account for the growth of the religion before the advent of the gospels? Since there was no mass media the movement depended on human interaction. What was so compelling, the idea of a man or a mans demonstration?

 

Tried to get a serious discussion going on a thread that's been moribund for months. An historian, Richard Carrier, has recently published a book purporting to prove that Jesus was probably a pure fabrication satisfying the wants of Hellenized Jews. You might, or might hot, find it interesting. (I'd guess not.) If he's right, I think the people on this forum might consider why they think it's still useful to use the label "Christian". I, of course, think he's wrong, that Jesus not only existed but did and said some really important things. In fact, it was my impression that this "Sanctuary" was set up on the assumption that Christians would find it important to discuss such things. I think it's strange that if a post doesn't interest you, you'd waste your time with it. My vote is to disband this ghetto. It serves no useful purpose except to create the illusion that Christians on these forums have something special to say.

 

If you wanted this thread to take off then why did you open the similar one drawing replies away from this one?

 

If your interest didn't interest me I wouldn't have responded. I am being serious. I didn't know this was to be a book critique from your original post. Just from the way you put it forward, having not read the book there is nothing significant in a book that purports to demonstrate a probability. You could just as easily say there is a probability the earth will be struck by a damaging celestial object. There is also the probability that we may be duped in one way or another at any moment. I think you might get less participation than you would like because you posit things in a rarefied academic way, that is you need to be reading the books you are interested in to respond in terms you find meaningful, i.e. footnotes or references. No one feels safe in a sanctuary where people are saying it should be disbanded or demolished because you aren't finding intellectual satisfaction. We do however have a book in common which contains a passage that addresses this issue of how important it is what others say when jesus asks peter, who do you say I am? Peter tries to report what others had said about him but jesus presses and asks again and peter responds with his own conviction to which jesus says no man had told him this. The point is that it is your determination that counts in what you will learn. As far as the usefulness of the label christian it is helpful in distinguishing one thing from another in terms of world view.

 

Unfortunately, I, like many mortals, don't have the gift of revealed certainty, and therefore must rely on probabilities. Most books on natural and social sciences, including history, deal in probabilities. Yes, we can say that there's a finite probability of being struck by a celestial body, since celestial bodies have struck the earth. I wasn't putting forward a book discussion topic, but was rather hoping for responses that would be less facetious in tone than the first several here. I posted it here because in the Sanctuary Christians have an opportunity to quote scripture. We did go through quite a dry spell, I thought, since the post last July on the Sign of the Fish, pointing out that: "The fish explains that we cannot know everything about the future or especially the justification of the demands of being lead by our leaders to the solutions of good science." And it was almost as long between this post and the last entry to War John's December post: " It has been a long time of God having his ONLY begotten Son. Does God have any additional kids who are also messiahs that are females?" So I hope I don't seem like an intellectual snob in suggesting that people aren't taking this site as seriously as they might, and wondering what purpose it might be serving.

 

Well I didn't see any posts or threads of a facetious in tone. The claim facetious tone can only come from your subjective standards. There is no finite probability nothing being at rest, but there are definitions and these definitions we regard as substantial. We name the animals or the events As far as the worthiness of this section it is simply as valuable to you as the investment you make. Note I say this as a fundamental axiomatic principle of christ teaching, the measure you give is the measure you receive. The fact that you hoped to revive this section is hope enough as here we are having a discussion. It is my hope that you would find our discussion of some value. Why didn't you take up Aerianne's claim of documented lineage? It speaks precisely to the question you pose. Maybe you might add value to this exercise by saying something that someone else takes to heart rather than looking to fill up yours then we might hear how specially christian your outlook. This particular section I think is meant to discuss the dynamics of your our own relationship in faith with people of similar mind without having to deal with the academic naysayers who demand proof instead of being willing to.discuss practice. It is in practice where the axiomatic principles are demonstrated as true.

There is much more to say here but I have to take a break.

 

Yes, as I recall, last time I posted this Okie gave me a thumbs down.

 

In the absence of a birth certificate we are rally left to what has been said about him. One thing is he was called teacher and the thing that would distinguish him in that case is his teaching.
A teaching must be learned and it is in it's learning that we find it's substance. What substance is promised by adherence to a practical teaching, abundant life and rest for the weary and heavy laden. By this honest criteria we can determine if a voice fictional or factual has weight in reality. in the same instance we should be able to determine if our interpretations of what has been said are accurate because they should lead to the same effects. Does your interpretation put you at odds with the world or your fellow man? I would suggest that if you require a christian sanctuary it well might.