The "Historical Jesus"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thephilosopher6 said:
Based on the evidence that the Jesus Seminar has found, it’s very likely Jesus said something along the lines of “Love your enemies.” Based on the same evidence, the Jesus Seminar believes it’s unlikely Jesus ever said some of the things that attributed to him in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21
Click to expand...
What evidence?

(16)
 
Last edited:
Look at it for yourself:

books.google.com

The Five Gospels

Did Jesus claim to be the Messiah?Did he promise to return and usher in a new age?How did Jesus envision the Kingdom of God?The Five Gospels answers these questions in a bold, dynamic work that will startle traditional readers of the Bible and rekindle interest in it among secular skeptics. In...
books.google.com
 
You can’t expect me to read a whole book to respond to a comment on a forum.

Summarize the key points of evidence.
 
This is biblical scholarship, not 9th grade history class. If you actually want to understand anything you have to go in depth. I’ve presented you with what you need for the evidence, now take it up.
 
Last edited:
thephilosopher6 said:
If you actually want to understand anything you have to go in depth.
Click to expand...
Real historians can explain the basics of how we know things to an audience of non-historians:

Example:

We know that Caesar crossed the Rubicon because there’s a ton of sources from that period saying that he did.
 
Again, you are moving the goal post. You wanted evidence as to why the Jesus Seminar holds the position that they hold, I gave you the evidence. Read it if you want to know. This is their posisiton on the issue, not even necessarily mine.
 
Last edited:
Besides, in a way I have already summarized. They based their conclusions on what best seems to reflect Jesus, what was in the Q source, what we can find in other independent sources including in both canonical and non-canonical material, how likely it is to come from Jesus himself as oppose to later development in Church tradition, among other methods of examination. If you want the in depth and the specifics, read the book. This is their argument, not mine.
 
Last edited:
1st link didn’t work, but I can always ead his book reviews.

I read the Jesus seminar guys a long time ago and appreciate thier views.
Is the historical Jesus available to us? Probably some aspects of him.
I am looking to encounter the current living Jesus.
 
What passages being added later? I never made the claim that Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 were added later. They’re certainly apart of the original.

Clearly you don’t understand the subject at hand. Please, come back when you’ve read a good book and then we can talk.

books.google.com

The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus

This volume includes about thirty contributions to the 49th Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense, held in July 2000 in Leuven. The authors represent the contemporary state of the scholarly discussion in Europe and North America on the sayings source Q, in connection to actual problems of the quest of...
books.google.com
 
Honestl, I May be wrong and if I am please let know but, I believe that it important to study both aspects of Our Lord’s life. Knowing the historical climate that He faced when He walked the earth ca better help us to further understand His teaching and actions. I know that a lot of people are afraid of historical and scientific study, but I don’t think this should be the case. Like you said, He is a historical figure, He did walk the earth during great political and religious crisis and all this,along with the theological and historical foot prints He left behind can help us better love, serve, and defend Him. Obviously there will be error, but that is when Our Holy mother church comes in. We have to interpret these finding with the light of faith, but never, ever should we be against or close ourselves to this knowledge. I think it’ll be interesting to know what they find :)!
 
That’s not saying they were added later to the text. They were there from the start. You misunderstand.
 
Last edited:
Ok with me. I have lost interest in a lot of the academic debates anyway. I want to know the living Jesus of today. Who is he now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top