Historical Jesus: The unchanging reality of the New Testament record.

[Mr.Right]

When examined, the “Historical Jesus” movement of the last 100 years has unearthed nothing that undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that Jesus was merely a “good man.” There is no “new evidence” debunking the accounts of miracles and the resurrection based on new analysis of “myth theory” over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the nature and content of the New Testament record than ever before - See more at: Historical Jesus

 

[Foxfyre]

When examined, the “Historical Jesus” movement of the last 100 years has unearthed nothing that undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that Jesus was merely a “good man.” There is no “new evidence” debunking the accounts of miracles and the resurrection based on new analysis of “myth theory” over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the nature and content of the New Testament record than ever before - See more at: Historical Jesus

Interesting topic. I don't have any way to know how reliable or credible your linked source is, but I don't have a lot of argument with their point of view on this subject. Given the evidence that we have, and given the variances in testimony that you would expect among authentic eye witnesses and those who knew them or immediately followed them, I think there is much stronger evidence for believing in the historical Jesus than there is to disbelieve.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Bible unoriginal - Freethought Nation

Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Bible unoriginal

Over the years, news items have circulated about how “hints” and “insights” contained in the original texts among the famous Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in caves near the ancient site of Qumran can be found in the Bible. In other words, certain ideas in the scrolls also appear in the New Testament, meaning, of course, that the impression of Christianity as a “divine revelation” appearing whole cloth miraculously from the very finger of God is clearly erroneous.

Few scholars today claim that any of the Dead Sea Scrolls (“DSS”) date to the time after Christianity was allegedly founded by a “historical” Jesus in the first century of the common era. Indeed, it is agreed that most of the scrolls pre-date the turn of the era and that none of them show any knowledge of Jesus Christ or Christianity.

“They speak of a Teacher of Righteousness and a pierced messiah, of cleansing through water and a battle of light against darkness.

“But anyone looking to the Dead Sea Scrolls in search of proof, say, that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah presaged by the prophets, or that John the Baptist lived among the scroll’s authors, will be disappointed.”


Hints of the Scrolls in Bible

To understand how the Dead Sea Scrolls influenced early Christianity, just turn to the New Testament.

Take, for example, the Great Isaiah Scroll, a facsimile of which is on display as part of the Milwaukee Public Museum’s Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit. Written around 125 B.C. and the only scroll to emerge virtually intact from the caves at Qumran, its messianic message is quoted in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke, the earliest of which wasn’t written until around A.D. 65.

Moreover, the Sermon on the Mount – supposedly the original monologue straight out of the mouth of the Son of God Himself – can be shown to be a series of Old Testament scriptures strung together, along with, apparently, such texts from Qumran. No “historical” founder was necessary at all to speak these words, as they are a rehash of extant sayings. (Even in this patent literary device the gospels cannot agree, as Luke 6:17-49 depicts the Sermon as having taken place on a plain.)​

The Dead Sea Scrolls "undermine the gospel accounts".

 

[Foxfyre]

The Qumran scrolls contained all the books of the Old Testament except for Esther and confirmed that the text has been remarkably preserved and largely uncontaminated in all this time. One cannot understand the New Testament without a basic knowledge of the Old Testament material because so much of the scripture quoted by Jesus did parallel or come from the Old Testament texts of which he obviously knew well. As did others among the Jews of his time and who recognized the fulfillment of ancient prophecies in the historical Jesus.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts. It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Qumran scrolls contained all the books of the Old Testament except for Esther and confirmed that the text has been remarkably preserved and largely uncontaminated in all this time. One cannot understand the New Testament without a basic knowledge of the Old Testament material because so much of the scripture quoted by Jesus did parallel or come from the Old Testament texts of which he obviously knew well. As did others among the Jews of his time and who recognized the fulfillment of ancient prophecies in the historical Jesus.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts. It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

When examined, the “Historical Jesus” movement of the last 100 years has unearthed nothing that undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that Jesus was merely a “good man.” There is no “new evidence” debunking the accounts of miracles and the resurrection based on new analysis of “myth theory” over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the nature and content of the New Testament record than ever before - See more at: Historical Jesus

Interesting topic. I don't have any way to know how reliable or credible your linked source is, but I don't have a lot of argument with their point of view on this subject. Given the evidence that we have, and given the variances in testimony that you would expect among authentic eye witnesses and those who knew them or immediately followed them, I think there is much stronger evidence for believing in the historical Jesus than there is to disbelieve.

You don't have any way of knowing how reliable or credible a site called "all about jesus" is? Really? Little biased perhaps for starters?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Qumran scrolls contained all the books of the Old Testament except for Esther and confirmed that the text has been remarkably preserved and largely uncontaminated in all this time. One cannot understand the New Testament without a basic knowledge of the Old Testament material because so much of the scripture quoted by Jesus did parallel or come from the Old Testament texts of which he obviously knew well. As did others among the Jews of his time and who recognized the fulfillment of ancient prophecies in the historical Jesus.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts. It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Oh I believe there is plenty of evidence. Mostly because the Qumran scrolls exist. And because they in no way call into question any New Testament events as we have them.

 

[Foxfyre]

When examined, the “Historical Jesus” movement of the last 100 years has unearthed nothing that undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that Jesus was merely a “good man.” There is no “new evidence” debunking the accounts of miracles and the resurrection based on new analysis of “myth theory” over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the nature and content of the New Testament record than ever before - See more at: Historical Jesus

Interesting topic. I don't have any way to know how reliable or credible your linked source is, but I don't have a lot of argument with their point of view on this subject. Given the evidence that we have, and given the variances in testimony that you would expect among authentic eye witnesses and those who knew them or immediately followed them, I think there is much stronger evidence for believing in the historical Jesus than there is to disbelieve.

You don't have any way of knowing how reliable or credible a site called "all about jesus" is? Really? Little biased perhaps for starters?

And perhaps you would like to explain how the title on the site is detrimental to a discussion about the New Testament? If you want information about climate science, do you go to a site about accounting or airplanes or something else that doesn't have 'climate science' in its title to get information about climate science?

The OP offers an interesting topic for discussion. I would like to discuss it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Qumran scrolls contained all the books of the Old Testament except for Esther and confirmed that the text has been remarkably preserved and largely uncontaminated in all this time. One cannot understand the New Testament without a basic knowledge of the Old Testament material because so much of the scripture quoted by Jesus did parallel or come from the Old Testament texts of which he obviously knew well. As did others among the Jews of his time and who recognized the fulfillment of ancient prophecies in the historical Jesus.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts. It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Oh I believe there is plenty of evidence. Mostly because the Qumran scrolls exist. And because they in no way call into question any New Testament events as we have them.

The scroll do exist and they most definitely question the authenticity of the new testament.

Then again the new testament calls into question it's own authenticity. For example why did Luke describe the sermon "on the mount" as taking place on a plain? There are masses of contradictions just like that one.

The writers of the Qumran scrolls were an exclusionist sect but the new testament has been edited to be inclusionary.

Feel free to ignore the scrolls where they contradict your beliefs but they are the only contemporary and unedited source available. They do support the writings of the old testament but not the originality of the new testament.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Qumran scrolls contained all the books of the Old Testament except for Esther and confirmed that the text has been remarkably preserved and largely uncontaminated in all this time. One cannot understand the New Testament without a basic knowledge of the Old Testament material because so much of the scripture quoted by Jesus did parallel or come from the Old Testament texts of which he obviously knew well. As did others among the Jews of his time and who recognized the fulfillment of ancient prophecies in the historical Jesus.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts. It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Oh I believe there is plenty of evidence. Mostly because the Qumran scrolls exist. And because they in no way call into question any New Testament events as we have them.

The scroll do exist and they most definitely question the authenticity of the new testament.

Then again the new testament calls into question it's own authenticity. For example why did Luke describe the sermon "on the mount" as taking place on a plain? There are masses of contradictions just like that one.

The writers of the Qumran scrolls were an exclusionist sect but the new testament has been edited to be inclusionary.

Feel free to ignore the scrolls where they contradict your beliefs but they are the only contemporary and unedited source available. They do support the writings of the old testament but not the originality of the new testament.

I simply don't have the time or the inclination to give you a lesson on Old Testament or New Testament content. I will just say your post indicates you don't know what you are talking about and have no understanding of the Old Testament references found in the New Testament or why they are there and/or how they authenticate the New Testament rather than undermine it. So unless you can show evidence that such references undermine the New Testament in any way, I'll spend my time discussing with other folks. Thanks.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Qumran scrolls contained all the books of the Old Testament except for Esther and confirmed that the text has been remarkably preserved and largely uncontaminated in all this time. One cannot understand the New Testament without a basic knowledge of the Old Testament material because so much of the scripture quoted by Jesus did parallel or come from the Old Testament texts of which he obviously knew well. As did others among the Jews of his time and who recognized the fulfillment of ancient prophecies in the historical Jesus.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts. It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

Certainly the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran Scrolls) did nothing to call into question New Testament accounts.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

It would seem that if such care was taken by the ancient ones to preserve and protect the ancient texts, that equal care was taken to preserve and protect the integrity of New Testament writings as well.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Oh I believe there is plenty of evidence. Mostly because the Qumran scrolls exist. And because they in no way call into question any New Testament events as we have them.

The scroll do exist and they most definitely question the authenticity of the new testament.

Then again the new testament calls into question it's own authenticity. For example why did Luke describe the sermon "on the mount" as taking place on a plain? There are masses of contradictions just like that one.

The writers of the Qumran scrolls were an exclusionist sect but the new testament has been edited to be inclusionary.

Feel free to ignore the scrolls where they contradict your beliefs but they are the only contemporary and unedited source available. They do support the writings of the old testament but not the originality of the new testament.

I simply don't have the time or the inclination to give you a lesson on Old Testament or New Testament content. I will just say your post indicates you don't know what you are talking about and have no understanding of the Old Testament references found in the New Testament ore why they are there and/or how they authenticate the New Testament rather than undermine it. So unless you can show evidence that such references undermine the New Testament in any way, I'll spend my time discussing with other folks. Thanks.

Your failure to defend your unsubstantiated position is duly noted and your terms of unilateral surrender are accepted.

Unlike you I will continue to provide credible links that support my positions.

Have a nice secular day.

 

[Steven_R]

There's nothing in the historical record that backs up the claim that every male baby in Judea was murdered on Herod's orders. That is one of those things that either Jewish or Romans chroniclers might have noticed and wrote down.

 

[Iceweasel]

I've studied up on this since before I had the internet to study up on it. My belief on the whole matter is that there probably was a rabbi Yeshua and he probably was an Essene (from the DSS area) and came into the big city and taught a new and deeper way of thinking about the OT.

The region was undergoing a cultural change at the time due to Greek influence. Greek thought was more spiritual in nature and the cultural shift so dominant that around that time period most Jews no longer speak Aramaic. In fact, the Sepuagint needed to be written (Greek translation of the OT) and the books making up the NT written in Koine (common everyday Greek lingo).

Some of the errors in the NT can be traced back to Hebrew to Greek translational errors of the Septuagint. It was maybe 70 years after the Jesus figure disappeared than anything was written (he couldn't be bothered to apparently). So I believe the word of mouth accounts grew and became more supernatural as time went on. That was common in the day and not unheard of today.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've studied up on this since before I had the internet to study up on it. My belief on the whole matter is that there probably was a rabbi Yeshua and he probably was an Essene (from the DSS area) and came into the big city and taught a new and deeper way of thinking about the OT.

The region was undergoing a cultural change at the time due to Greek influence. Greek thought was more spiritual in nature and the cultural shift so dominant that around that time period most Jews no longer speak Aramaic. In fact, the Sepuagint needed to be written (Greek translation of the OT) and the books making up the NT written in Koine (common everyday Greek lingo).

Some of the errors in the NT can be traced back to Hebrew to Greek translational errors of the Septuagint. It was maybe 70 years after the Jesus figure disappeared than anything was written (he couldn't be bothered to apparently). So I believe the word of mouth accounts grew and became more supernatural as time went on. That was common in the day and not unheard of today.

Yes, my theological studies

I've studied up on this since before I had the internet to study up on it. My belief on the whole matter is that there probably was a rabbi Yeshua and he probably was an Essene (from the DSS area) and came into the big city and taught a new and deeper way of thinking about the OT.

The region was undergoing a cultural change at the time due to Greek influence. Greek thought was more spiritual in nature and the cultural shift so dominant that around that time period most Jews no longer speak Aramaic. In fact, the Sepuagint needed to be written (Greek translation of the OT) and the books making up the NT written in Koine (common everyday Greek lingo).

Some of the errors in the NT can be traced back to Hebrew to Greek translational errors of the Septuagint. It was maybe 70 years after the Jesus figure disappeared than anything was written (he couldn't be bothered to apparently). So I believe the word of mouth accounts grew and became more supernatural as time went on. That was common in the day and not unheard of today.

Yes, my serious theological education also began in the late 60's long before there was an internet or even any concept of personal computers and has continued to now. I will gently disagree that nothing was written down before 70 A.D. The letters of Apostle Paul certainly precede 70 A.D. It is commonly accepted, however, that it was around 70 A.D. that the Jews were last driven from Jerusalem. And because the Christianized Jews did not go to their aid at the time, there was deep resentment on the part of the exiled Jews and that caused the final and complete schism between the Jews and their Christian brethren. Never again would the Romans consider Christianity a sect within Judaism that had afforded the Christians a degree of protection up to that point. The Jews were given exemption from the requirement to worship Roman Gods. And Christians were now not included in that exemption.

A careful reading of the New Testament texts show a difference between those written before 70 A.D. had a subtle difference from those written after 70 A.D. Those before 70 A.D. indicate little or no interference by the Romans, even despite Paul's jail time, and were focused more on teaching and understanding the Gospel and living a godly life in preparation for the return of Christ. After 70 A.D. there is more suggestion of persecutions, more writing in apocalyptic code as found in the entire Book of Revelation, and the message becomes one of encouragement to persevere and endure. Even though the roughly dozen Roman Emperors who went out of their way to persecute Christians did so sporadically, and while such persecutions were not universal throughout all the Christian congregations, it was nevertheless dangerous times for Christians until Constantine in the 4th Century.

IMO, the oral tradition was very reliable, and insufficient time had passed for a cohesive mythology to have developed by the time the New Testament texts were written down. Again, because they were writing for their own people and not us 2000 years later, they omitted a lot of detail and explanation that would have been invaluable to us, but was unnecessary for them. Was the language to express the supernatural enhanced? I don't know. I can believe some stories were embellished via literary license or for effect just as I believe happened in some Old Testament accounts. But I think most of it was telling it pretty much as they recalled it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Myth of Christian Persecution by the Romans

The Myth of Persecution Early Christians weren t persecuted - Salon.com

“The Myth of Persecution”: Early Christians weren’t persecuted
The Romans did not target, hunt or massacre Jesus' followers, says a historian of the early church

Moss also examines surviving Roman records. She notes that during the only concerted anti-Christian Roman campaign, under the emperor Diocletian between 303 and 306, Christians were expelled from public offices. Their churches, such as the one in Nicomedia, across the street from the imperial palace, were destroyed. Yet, as Moss points out, if the Christians were holding high offices in the first place and had built their church “in the emperor’s own front yard,” they could hardly have been in hiding away in catacombs before Diocletian issued his edicts against them.

This is not to deny that some Christians were executed in horrible ways under conditions we’d consider grotesquely unjust. But it’s important, Moss explains, to distinguish between “persecution” and “prosecution.” The Romans had no desire to support a prison population, so capital punishment was common for many seemingly minor offenses; you could be sentenced to be beaten to death for writing a slanderous song. Moss distinguishes between those cases in which Christians were prosecuted simply for being Christians and those in which they were condemned for engaging in what the Romans considered subversive or treasonous activity. Given the “everyday ideals and social structures” the Romans regarded as essential to the empire, such transgressions might include publicly denying the divine status of the emperor, rejecting military service or refusing to accept the authority of a court. In one of her most fascinating chapters, Moss tries to explain how baffling and annoying the Romans (for whom “pacifism didn’t exist as a concept”) found the Christians — when the Romans thought about them at all.

Christians wound up in Roman courts for any number of reasons, but when they got there, they were prone to announcing, as a believer named Liberian once did, “that he cannot be respectful to the emperor, that he can be respectful only to Christ.” Moss compares this to “modern defendants who say that they will not recognize the authority of the court or of the government, but recognize only the authority of God. For modern Americans, as for ancient Romans, this sounds either sinister or vaguely insane.” It didn’t help that early Christians developed a passion for martyrdom. Suffering demonstrated both the piety of the martyr and the authenticity of the religion itself, and besides, it earned you an immediate, first-class seat in heaven. (Ordinary Christians had to wait for Judgment Day.) There were reports of fanatics deliberately seeking out the opportunity to die for their faith, including a mob that turned up at the door of a Roman official in Asia Minor, demanding to be martyred, only to be turned away when he couldn’t be bothered to oblige them.​

 

[Iceweasel]

Yes, my serious theological education also began in the late 60's long before there was an internet or even any concept of personal computers and has continued to now. I will gently disagree that nothing was written down before 70 A.D. The letters of Apostle Paul certainly precede 70 A.D.

Yes, I believe around 36 AD. I meant the Jesus story itself. Paul never met him (except by vision) so had no history to offer.

It is commonly accepted, however, that it was around 70 A.D. that the Jews were last driven from Jerusalem. And because the Christianized Jews did not go to their aid at the time, there was deep resentment on the part of the exiled Jews and that caused the final and complete schism between the Jews and their Christian brethren. Never again would the Romans consider Christianity a sect within Judaism that had afforded the Christians a degree of protection up to that point. The Jews were given exemption from the requirement to worship Roman Gods. And Christians were now not included in that exemption.

A careful reading of the New Testament texts show a difference between those written before 70 A.D. had a subtle difference from those written after 70 A.D. Those before 70 A.D. indicate little or no interference by the Romans, even despite Paul's jail time, and were focused more on teaching and understanding the Gospel and living a godly life in preparation for the return of Christ. After 70 A.D. there is more suggestion of persecutions, more writing in apocalyptic code as found in the entire Book of Revelation, and the message becomes one of encouragement to persevere and endure. Even though the roughly dozen Roman Emperors who went out of their way to persecute Christians did so sporadically, and while such persecutions were not universal throughout all the Christian congregations, it was nevertheless dangerous times for Christians until Constantine in the 4th Century.

IMO, the oral tradition was very reliable, and insufficient time had passed for a cohesive mythology to have developed by the time the New Testament texts were written down. Again, because they were writing for their own people and not us 2000 years later, they omitted a lot of detail and explanation that would have been invaluable to us, but was unnecessary for them. Was the language to express the supernatural enhanced? I don't know. I can believe some stories were embellished via literary license or for effect just as I believe happened in some Old Testament accounts. But I think most of it was telling it pretty much as they recalled it.

Well, 70 years is a long time! And no one really knows who the authors really are. The gospels are attributed to Mark, Luke, Matthew and John but nothing can be verified, no originals even exist. Stories do get embellished, the technique occurs today in almost every church. They take an OT story and apply it to modern day living and it becomes much more than it was. In fact, much of the NT is exactly that. Supernatural meanings are applied to OT events that were just historical.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, my serious theological education also began in the late 60's long before there was an internet or even any concept of personal computers and has continued to now. I will gently disagree that nothing was written down before 70 A.D. The letters of Apostle Paul certainly precede 70 A.D.

Yes, I believe around 36 AD. I meant the Jesus story itself. Paul never met him (except by vision) so had no history to offer.

It is commonly accepted, however, that it was around 70 A.D. that the Jews were last driven from Jerusalem. And because the Christianized Jews did not go to their aid at the time, there was deep resentment on the part of the exiled Jews and that caused the final and complete schism between the Jews and their Christian brethren. Never again would the Romans consider Christianity a sect within Judaism that had afforded the Christians a degree of protection up to that point. The Jews were given exemption from the requirement to worship Roman Gods. And Christians were now not included in that exemption.

A careful reading of the New Testament texts show a difference between those written before 70 A.D. had a subtle difference from those written after 70 A.D. Those before 70 A.D. indicate little or no interference by the Romans, even despite Paul's jail time, and were focused more on teaching and understanding the Gospel and living a godly life in preparation for the return of Christ. After 70 A.D. there is more suggestion of persecutions, more writing in apocalyptic code as found in the entire Book of Revelation, and the message becomes one of encouragement to persevere and endure. Even though the roughly dozen Roman Emperors who went out of their way to persecute Christians did so sporadically, and while such persecutions were not universal throughout all the Christian congregations, it was nevertheless dangerous times for Christians until Constantine in the 4th Century.

IMO, the oral tradition was very reliable, and insufficient time had passed for a cohesive mythology to have developed by the time the New Testament texts were written down. Again, because they were writing for their own people and not us 2000 years later, they omitted a lot of detail and explanation that would have been invaluable to us, but was unnecessary for them. Was the language to express the supernatural enhanced? I don't know. I can believe some stories were embellished via literary license or for effect just as I believe happened in some Old Testament accounts. But I think most of it was telling it pretty much as they recalled it.

Well, 70 years is a long time! And no one really knows who the authors really are. The gospels are attributed to Mark, Luke, Matthew and John but nothing can be verified, no originals even exist. Stories do get embellished, the technique occurs today in almost every church. They take an OT story and apply it to modern day living and it becomes much more than it was. In fact, much of the NT is exactly that. Supernatural meanings are applied to OT events that were just historical.

Paul's teachings via his letters to the churches all focus on a risen Christ and rarely refer to the historical Jesus. Because he was a militant and passionate Jew when Jesus was alive and because he definitely entertained murderous thoughts about the heretical Christians, it is unlikely he had much, if any, instruction in the life and times of Jesus when he was on Earth. Therefore there is almost nothing about that in those letters.

But he refers to correspondence with and meetings with various of Jesus' disciples even if he wasn't always completely theologically aligned with them, especially Peter. Remember it was only roughly 40 years between Jesus' death and 70 A.D. And many of the people who were alive at the time of the crucifixion were still alive in 70 A.D. The chances of there being a great deal of embellishment or for any mythology to develop in that relatively short time just isn't all that plausible for me.

The later writings, most especially the authoritarian "gospels' were, IMO, obviously edited together to be theological statements of what the writers perceived to be important to know and understand about the historical Jesus and what he taught. Essentially every bit of Mark can be found in Matthew and Luke so they both obviously copied from that manuscript. John is entirely different from all the others and is its own work. And none make much effort to provide a historical documentary and it is obvious, to me anyway, they did not intend those manuscripts to serve that purpose.

 

[Iceweasel]

But he refers to correspondence with and meetings with various of Jesus' disciples even if he wasn't always completely theologically aligned with them, especially Peter. Remember it was only roughly 40 years between Jesus' death and 70 A.D. And many of the people who were alive at the time of the crucifixion were still alive in 70 A.D. The chances of there being a great deal of embellishment or for any mythology to develop just isn't all that plausible for me.

The later writings, most especially the authoritarian "gospels' were, IMO, obviously edited together to be theological statements of what the writers perceived to be important to know and understand about the historical Jesus and what he taught. Essentially every bit of Mark can be found in Matthew and Luke so they both obviously copied from that manuscript. John is entirely different from all the others and is its own work. And none make much effort to provide a historical documentary and it is obvious, to me anyway, they did not intend those manuscripts to serve that purpose.

There's no evidence the supernatural events happened, at all. Just because someone wrote something down and it was copied doesn't make it true. If the rabbi or person Jesus was based on was crucified it didn't happen the biblical way.

There's no mention anywhere that many were raised from the dead and walked around, no evidence of day into night. No mention of the Temple drapes being rendered in half. No earthquake. Nobody alive in 70 AD could have confirmed what didn't happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

But he refers to correspondence with and meetings with various of Jesus' disciples even if he wasn't always completely theologically aligned with them, especially Peter. Remember it was only roughly 40 years between Jesus' death and 70 A.D. And many of the people who were alive at the time of the crucifixion were still alive in 70 A.D. The chances of there being a great deal of embellishment or for any mythology to develop just isn't all that plausible for me.

The later writings, most especially the authoritarian "gospels' were, IMO, obviously edited together to be theological statements of what the writers perceived to be important to know and understand about the historical Jesus and what he taught. Essentially every bit of Mark can be found in Matthew and Luke so they both obviously copied from that manuscript. John is entirely different from all the others and is its own work. And none make much effort to provide a historical documentary and it is obvious, to me anyway, they did not intend those manuscripts to serve that purpose.

There's no evidence the supernatural events happened, at all. Just because someone wrote something down and it was copied doesn't make it true. If the rabbi or person Jesus was based on was crucified it didn't happen the biblical way.

There's no mention anywhere that many were raised from the dead and walked around, no evidence of day into night. No mention of the Temple drapes being rendered in half. No earthquake. Nobody alive in 70 AD could have confirmed what didn't happen.

And there is no evidence that they DIDN'T happen either. Where is the evidence that Julius Caesar lived? He was a generation or two ahead of Jesus , but otherwise contemporaries. All we know about him is that there are symbolic expressions of his existence throughout the Roman Empire and otherwise all we know is what we read in the history books. How reliable are they? Certainly there is probably exaggeration for effect, some embellishment, some theory, some mythology included in all that.

All we know about Jesus is that there are symbolic expressions of his existence throughout the Roman Empire and otherwise all we know is what we read in the Biblical texts and history books. How reliable are they? Here too there is probably exaggeration for effect, some embellishment, some theory, some literary license included in all that.

What we now about either we take on faith. I believe in Julius Caesar because there is no good reason not to. I believe in the historical Jesus because there is no good reason not to. I believe in the risen Christ because he is real and has changed me and billions of others.

 

[Iceweasel]

But he refers to correspondence with and meetings with various of Jesus' disciples even if he wasn't always completely theologically aligned with them, especially Peter. Remember it was only roughly 40 years between Jesus' death and 70 A.D. And many of the people who were alive at the time of the crucifixion were still alive in 70 A.D. The chances of there being a great deal of embellishment or for any mythology to develop just isn't all that plausible for me.

The later writings, most especially the authoritarian "gospels' were, IMO, obviously edited together to be theological statements of what the writers perceived to be important to know and understand about the historical Jesus and what he taught. Essentially every bit of Mark can be found in Matthew and Luke so they both obviously copied from that manuscript. John is entirely different from all the others and is its own work. And none make much effort to provide a historical documentary and it is obvious, to me anyway, they did not intend those manuscripts to serve that purpose.

There's no evidence the supernatural events happened, at all. Just because someone wrote something down and it was copied doesn't make it true. If the rabbi or person Jesus was based on was crucified it didn't happen the biblical way.

There's no mention anywhere that many were raised from the dead and walked around, no evidence of day into night. No mention of the Temple drapes being rendered in half. No earthquake. Nobody alive in 70 AD could have confirmed what didn't happen.

And there is no evidence that they DIDN'T happen either. Where is the evidence that Julius Caesar lived? He was a generation or two ahead of Jesus , but otherwise contemporaries. All we know about him is that there are symbolic expressions of his existence throughout the Roman Empire and otherwise all we know is what we read in the history books. How reliable are they? Certainly there is probably exaggeration for effect, some embellishment, some theory, some mythology included in all that.

All we know about Jesus and that there are symbolic expressions of his existence throughout the Roman Empire and otherwise all we know is what we read in the Biblical texts and history books. How reliable are they? Here too there is probably exaggeration for effect, some embellishment, some theory, some literary license included in all that.

What we now about either we take on faith. I believe in Julius Caesar because there is no good reason not to. I believe in the historical Jesus because there is no good reason not to. I believe in the risen Christ because he is real and has changed me and billions of others.

I just supplied some evidence. None of the extraordinary events at the crucifixion happened. Josephus was the Jewish historian and wrote in minutia about daily living. He was a contemporary and wouldn't have mentioned anything? Philo was prolific as well, knew many of the characters, like Herod. No mention either.

If it was said Caesar died and these supernatural events happened, we could believe a Caesar lived but with no mention anywhere else of the events we should dismiss them. Belief doesn't prove anything. Many believe in the Allah of the Koran andd it changed their lives too. I was a Christian for 20 plus years so I know how it works. You believe because it's true, it's true because you believe it....