The historical Jesus

[Treznor]

Maybe you missed in your education a name as Cleopatra.

Cleopatra was an Egyptian.

So? She's a woman, lived in almost the same time era and close to Israel. And last but not least, she had something to say.

So I was discussing the impossibility of a woman being allowed to teach among Hebrews. Even said so, in so many words.

[Hairless Kitten II]

So I was discussing the impossibility of a woman being allowed to teach among Hebrews. Even said so, in so many words.

I'm rather sure that also in that time some women had an obsessive compulsive personality disorder. And trust me, with such women you don't mess.

Seriously, I know very well that women were second class citizen (they still are), but I’m rather sure that even in that time in that location a few women had a kind of a leader position.

[Grave_n_idle]

Except these people did spread it. Why do you think Christianity spread?

People were liing in hard times. Religion is always popular in hard times.

I laugh when non-believers direct me to that infidels site, because it's clear that those people have never done an inductive reading of the Bible, nor have any real scholarly research into it.

Attacking the source, rather than the material?

Using your own logic - I have to assume that's because you've never done an honest reading of, or scholarly research on, the Bible.

[Treznor]

So I was discussing the impossibility of a woman being allowed to teach among Hebrews. Even said so, in so many words.

I'm rather sure that also in that time some women had an obsessive compulsive personality disorder. And trust me, with such women you don't mess.

Seriously, I know very well that women were second class citizen (they still are), but I’m rather sure that even in that time in that location a few women had a kind of a leader position.

Everything I learned about the time period and local culture says that such women either "lead" from behind the scenes or suffered very quick and violent ends. They wouldn't be given time to travel up and down the shores of Galilee before mobs lead by religious leaders stoned them dead.

[Eternal Mysteries]

The real historical question is: Do you Exist? Or are you a ?

History proves that humans are born, live, then die. Can you rise from the grave? The abyss? The "dark matter" universe where time is not?

Who are you?

[Buffett and Colbert]

The real historical question is: Do you Exist? Or are you a ?

History proves that humans are born, live, then die. Can you rise from the grave? The abyss? The "dark matter" universe where time is not?

Who are you?

I'm the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Kneel to my noodly goodness.

[Trippoli]

Jesus was real, I just don't think he was as magical as people claimed he was. And I doubt he rose from the dead.

[JLAEST]

About the gospels, what I always read and heard was that them being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is just a myth. In fact, what some think it happened is that communities, influenced by the view of one of these (or others that are given those names) wrote the gospels. That may explain the differences between them and why some privilege some parts (for example, in Luke, dinners and walks are common, what is according to the helenic culture they were written to/in). That is also why, in some languages, as Portuguese, the correct form is not "Gospel of John" but something that will be like "Gospel according John".

[Buffett and Colbert]

About the gospels, what I always read and heard was that them being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is just a myth. In fact, what some think it happened is that communities, influenced by the view of one of these (or others that are given those names) wrote the gospels. That may explain the differences between them and why some privilege some parts (for example, in Luke, dinners and walks are common, what is according to the helenic culture they were written to/in). That is also why, in some languages, as Portuguese, the correct form is not "Gospel of John" but something that will be like "Gospel according John".

This is quite likely. But the fact remains that the majority of Christian denominations take the word of the Bible as the word of God, no matter who wrote it.

[JLAEST]

For Christians:

Jesus = God

Word of Jesus = Word of God

Gospels, even if wrote by other persons and later = Word of Jesus

Gospels = Word of God

I think that is the main idea, even if some can put it in a different way.

[Enadail]

About the gospels, what I always read and heard was that them being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is just a myth. In fact, what some think it happened is that communities, influenced by the view of one of these (or others that are given those names) wrote the gospels. That may explain the differences between them and why some privilege some parts (for example, in Luke, dinners and walks are common, what is according to the helenic culture they were written to/in). That is also why, in some languages, as Portuguese, the correct form is not "Gospel of John" but something that will be like "Gospel according John".

This is quite likely. But the fact remains that the majority of Christian denominations take the word of the Bible as the word of God, no matter who wrote it.

Don't forget that these aren't the only Gospels, just the ones special enough to make it into the Bible (no, the Bible is not the word of God, but the picked "Word of God"). For all we know, one or many of the rejected Gospels talked about how human Jesus was.

[JLAEST]

I can't find that:

Non-canonical gospels

Main article: New Testament apocrypha
In addition to the four canonical gospels, early Christians wrote other gospels that were not accepted into the canon. Generally these were not accepted due to doubt over the authorship, the time frame between the original writing and the events described, or content that was at odds with orthodoxy.[citation needed] For example, if a gospel claimed to be written by James, yet was authored in the second century, clearly authorship was not authentic.[citation needed] This differs from the four canonical gospels which historians agree were authored before 100. For this reason, most of these non-canonical texts were only ever accepted by small portions of the early Christian community.[citation needed] Some of the content of these non-canonical gospels (as much as it deviates from accepted theological norms) is considered heretical by the leadership of mainstream churches, including the Vatican.[citation needed]
[edit]The sayings gospel Q
Main article: Q document
The hypothetical gospel Q comprised mostly sayings of Jesus with little narrative. It is presumably the source for many of Jesus' sayings in Matthew and Luke, and accordingly must have preceded these gospels. Its first edition was written c 50-60.[20] Mark Goodacre and other scholars have questioned this hypothetical document.
[edit]Gospel of Thomas
Main article: Gospel of Thomas
Like Q, the gospel attributed to Thomas is mostly wisdom without narrating Jesus' life. A few scholars argue that its first edition was written c 50-60, but that the surviving edition was written in the first half of the second century.[20] This would mean that its first edition was contemporary with the earliest letters of Paul the Apostle. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says that the original may date from c. 150.[21] It may represent a tradition independent from the canonical gospels, but that developed over a long time and was influenced by Matthew and Luke.[21] While it can be understood in Gnostic terms, it lacks the characteristic features of Gnostic doctrine.[21] The Jesus Seminar identified two of its unique parables, the parable of the empty jug and the parable of the assassin.[22] It had been lost but was discovered, in a Coptic version dating from c. 350, at Nag Hammadi in 1945-6, and three papyri, dated to c. 200, which contain fragments of a Greek text similar to but not identical with that in the Coptic language, have also been found.[21]
[edit]Gospel of Peter
Main article: Gospel of Peter
The gospel of Peter was likely written in the first half of the second century.[23][24] It seems to be largely legendary, hostile toward Jews, and including Docetic elements.[25] It had been lost but was rediscovered in the 19th century.[26]
[edit]Infancy Gospels
Main article: Infancy gospel
A genre of "Infancy gospels" (Greek: protoevangelion) arose in the 2nd century, such as the Gospel of James, which introduces the concept of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the absolutely different sayings Gospel of Thomas), both of which related many miraculous incidents from the life of Mary and the childhood of Jesus that are not included in the canonical gospels, but which have passed into Christian lore.
[edit]Harmonies
Main article: Gospel harmony
Another genre is that of Gospel harmonies, in which the four canonical gospels were selectively recast as a single narrative to present a consistent text. Very few fragments of harmonies have survived. The Diatessaron was such a harmonization, compiled by Tatian around 175. It was popular for at least two centuries in Syria, but eventually it fell into disuse.
[edit]Marcion's gospel of Luke
Marcion of Sinope, c. 150, had a version of the Gospel of Luke which differed substantially from that which has now become the standard text. Marcion's version was far less Jewish than the now canonical text, and his critics alleged that he had edited out the portions he didn't like from the canonical version, though Marcion argued that his text was the more genuinely original one. Marcion also rejected all the other gospels, including Matthew, Mark and especially John, which he alleged had been forged by Irenaeus.
[edit]Gospel of Judas
Main article: Gospel of Judas
The Gospel of Judas is another controversial and ancient text that purports to tell the story of the gospel from the perspective of Judas, the disciple who is usually said to have betrayed Jesus in most versions of the Bible. It paints an unusual picture of the relationship between Jesus and Judas. The text was recovered from a cave in Egypt by a thief and thereafter sold on the black market until it was finally discovered by a collector who, with the help of academics from Yale and Princeton, was able to verify its authenticity. The document itself does not claim to have been authored by Judas (it is, rather, a Gospel about Judas), and dates no earlier than the second century.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Kneel to my noodly goodness.

Is... Is this an order, or a polite request?

[Enadail]

I can't find that:

I'm gonna assume you mean you can't find a crazy off the whack gospel? I personally think they all are, but given that we don't know positively why the rejected gospels were rejected, we can't be sure that there were no obscure gospels being rejected as well.

[Tmutarakhan]

Ah, so 500 people, seeing the most glorious thing of their lives, didn't bother to write it down, note it, memento it, spread it?

There was only about a 1% literacy rate at the time, so we should expect about five, maybe, to write something about it... oh wait...

...all without waking the Roman guards(who would have arrested, or killed them)?

The story about the Roman guards is a particularly late addition to the gospel of Matthew (first mentioned about 170 AD). None of the other authors knows about any Roman guards (neither did the original text of Matthew). It contains an inadvertant admission that it is all made up: it reports conversations between people who then swear never to tell anybody-- so there is no possible source, except invention (or "inspiration" as they called it back then).

[FGMMY]

There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century

According your source, just about 20 pieces, and like I said, written 100 years later... This is not solid.

I feel I need to point this out to you, but the first century is actually the time in which Jesus lived: AD 0-99.

[Kormanthor]

We all know Jesus, but is he real, did he had a life? Well, IMHO, I doubt.

There's no good evidence. Most of it is written almost 100 years later after he had his so-called life. In that time there were several Jesus figures as well. Including ones that had 'magic' power, as turning water into wine, multiplying bread and so on.

So what do you think? Is there a historical Jesus or not?

Stop trying to start arguements about this same issue time after time.

[Cameroi]

was a little che guevara when he was 12 years old. didn't become a pacifist until he met up with john the baptist, which was also when god chose him to be channeled by. that's what the symbol of the dove landing on his sholder was all about. the real reasons for his exicution, at least the imperial sentiment for it, probably had more to do with what he had been doing in the first thirty years of his life then what he was promoting in his last three.

like every other canneller of big friendly and invisible, however unusual the circumstances otherwise, he was born every bit as human as any of us. only the last three years of his life did he become what he is remembered for.

and the credit for the resurection of his teachings probably belongs more to mary magdaline then saul of tarsus, however much the latter may have done later to promote them, though not without compromising and somewhat corrupting their origeonal intent in the proccess and as a means, of doing so.

of course what matters wasn't him but what he channeled. which is not to take away from him as a human, but the god part, as with all of them, was what he channeled and that it was big friendly and invisible, and not his human self, that chose him to do so.

[Kormanthor]

There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century

According your source, just about 20 pieces, and like I said, written 100 years later... This is not solid.

I feel I need to point this out to you, but the first century is actually the time in which Jesus lived: AD 0-99.

If that was true then it wouldn't be 0-99 " AD " ( After Death ) would it ?

[Farnhamia]

There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century

According your source, just about 20 pieces, and like I said, written 100 years later... This is not solid.

I feel I need to point this out to you, but the first century is actually the time in which Jesus lived: AD 0-99.

If that was true then it wouldn't be 0-99 " AD " ( After Death ) would it ?

"AD" actually stands for "Anno Domini" or "in the year of Our Lord." An old usage, really. One is starting to find "BCE (Before the Common Era)" and "CE (Common Era)" more often.

[Buffett and Colbert]

There are more than 20 ancient, non-Christian witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century

According your source, just about 20 pieces, and like I said, written 100 years later... This is not solid.

I feel I need to point this out to you, but the first century is actually the time in which Jesus lived: AD 0-99.

If that was true then it wouldn't be 0-99 " AD " ( After Death ) would it ?

Try Anno Domini.

[Altergo]

About the gospels, what I always read and heard was that them being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is just a myth. In fact, what some think it happened is that communities, influenced by the view of one of these (or others that are given those names) wrote the gospels. That may explain the differences between them and why some privilege some parts (for example, in Luke, dinners and walks are common, what is according to the helenic culture they were written to/in). That is also why, in some languages, as Portuguese, the correct form is not "Gospel of John" but something that will be like "Gospel according John".

But don't forget the lost and rejected Gospels that Constantine and the Church saw unworthy for the people to read.

[Buffett and Colbert]

About the gospels, what I always read and heard was that them being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is just a myth. In fact, what some think it happened is that communities, influenced by the view of one of these (or others that are given those names) wrote the gospels. That may explain the differences between them and why some privilege some parts (for example, in Luke, dinners and walks are common, what is according to the helenic culture they were written to/in). That is also why, in some languages, as Portuguese, the correct form is not "Gospel of John" but something that will be like "Gospel according John".

But don't forget the lost and rejected Gospels that Constantine and the Church saw unworthy for the people to read.

Good 'ol Council of Nicaea.

[JLAEST]

About the gospels, what I always read and heard was that them being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is just a myth. In fact, what some think it happened is that communities, influenced by the view of one of these (or others that are given those names) wrote the gospels. That may explain the differences between them and why some privilege some parts (for example, in Luke, dinners and walks are common, what is according to the helenic culture they were written to/in). That is also why, in some languages, as Portuguese, the correct form is not "Gospel of John" but something that will be like "Gospel according John".

But don't forget the lost and rejected Gospels that Constantine and the Church saw unworthy for the people to read.

And that today are actually proven to have been written later than those? And so, more innacurate? Is that ones that you speak off?

[Buffett and Colbert]

About the gospels, what I always read and heard was that them being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is just a myth. In fact, what some think it happened is that communities, influenced by the view of one of these (or others that are given those names) wrote the gospels. That may explain the differences between them and why some privilege some parts (for example, in Luke, dinners and walks are common, what is according to the helenic culture they were written to/in). That is also why, in some languages, as Portuguese, the correct form is not "Gospel of John" but something that will be like "Gospel according John".

But don't forget the lost and rejected Gospels that Constantine and the Church saw unworthy for the people to read.

And that today are actually proven to have been written later than those? And so, more innacurate? Is that ones that you speak off?

Well you can't say one is more accurate than the other. It's all a matter of perception. The accepted ones are the ones that conform best to Christianity. But the Gospel according to Phillip probably portrayed Jesus as a more mortal figure for example. You might claim that's innacurate, but you can't disprove this, especially when there's equal evidence for every single gospel being true or untrue.