Historical Jesus

[Winchester]

[quote name='reyb' post='1348983' date='Aug 3 2007, 08:05 PM'][indent]The subject of all faith, belief and controversies in Christianity and even other religion like Islam is Jesus himself. As some sayings of story- teller, the coming of Jesus is best story ever told in the history of humanity, may I ask, is there really a solid evidence of Jesus’ existence besides the Holy Scripture?[/indent][/quote]
I'm pretty sure Budge has some drawings...

[reyb]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1359098' date='Aug 15 2007, 04:05 AM']Perhaps Josephus was not exposed to those particular supernatural instances. He does give some striking details about supernatural phenomena occuring near and around the Temple area -- particularly of a blinding light leaving the Holy of Holies (a scenario that seems to suggest the Shekina Glory Cloud [God's presence] had abandoned the Jewish Temple). He also speaks of prophets who walked the streets preaching the imminent destruction of Jerusalem, which Christians at the time had already prepared for. Such details are consistent with the supernatural environment that existed around the Early Church, whether or not Josephus understood why they were occuring.[/quote]

[indent]Chapter 3 - Sedition Of The Jews Against Pontius Pilate. Concerning Christ, And What Befell Paulina And The Jews At Rome[/indent]

[indent]3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

(from Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)[/indent]
[indent]--------------------------------
Just for the record, according to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews[/url] regarding the above Chapter 3 of AJ by Josephus.

'However, most scholars view the Testimonium Flavianum as dubious - not only does the text read more continuously without it, but despite Josephus being a life long Jew, who portrayed Vespasian as the Messiah (Vespasian was Josephus' patron)',[/indent]

[Socrates]

Reyb, what exactly is your point here?

Are you doubting that Jesus existed?

If Jesus was an imaginary character, surely some of Christianity's early detractors would have brought this argument forth against him. But the fact is, no one even made this ludicrous claim until the late 19th century.

[reyb]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1360806' date='Aug 16 2007, 10:58 PM']Reyb, what exactly is your point here?

Are you doubting that Jesus existed?

If Jesus was an imaginary character, surely some of Christianity's early detractors would have brought this argument forth against him. But the fact is, no one even made this ludicrous claim until the late 19th century.[/quote]

[indent]I am not the first to look for regarding this issue. Apostle Paul said about ‘different gospel which is really no gospel at all’ in Gal 1:6-9 and ‘another Jesus’ which they did not preached in 2 Cor 11:3-6. He even warn us in 2 Thess 2:2 ‘not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us (referring to Apostle Paul and other witnesses) , saying that the day of the Lord has already come.’

Regarding Christian detractors, I am not one of them, who tends to ignore not only Jesus as Christ but the authenticity of the scripture itself. And in doing so, they consider the existence of historical Jesus but distorting the scripture regarding Jesus as in the case of the Jews, Islam and even Christians.

My intention is simple – to let truth comes out in the dark.[/indent]

Edited August 17, 2007 by reyb

[my6in7]

So are you saying that history gives more crediblity to the Scriptures than it does to Jesus?

Edited August 17, 2007 by my6in7

[abercius24]

[quote name='reyb' post='1360913' date='Aug 17 2007, 12:49 AM'][indent]I am not the first to look for regarding this issue. Apostle Paul said about ‘different gospel which is really no gospel at all’ in Gal 1:6-9 and ‘another Jesus’ which they did not preached in 2 Cor 11:3-6. He even warn us in 2 Thess 2:2 ‘not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us (referring to Apostle Paul and other witnesses) , saying that the day of the Lord has already come.’

Regarding Christian detractors, I am not one of them, who tends to ignore not only Jesus as Christ but the authenticity of the scripture itself. And in doing so, they consider the existence of historical Jesus but distorting the scripture regarding Jesus as in the case of the Jews, Islam and even Christians.

My intention is simple – to let truth comes out in the dark.[/indent][/quote]


[quote name='reyb' post='1360913' date='Aug 17 2007, 12:49 AM'][indent]I am not the first to look for regarding this issue. Apostle Paul said about ‘different gospel which is really no gospel at all’ in Gal 1:6-9 and ‘another Jesus’ which they did not preached in 2 Cor 11:3-6. He even warn us in 2 Thess 2:2 ‘not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us (referring to Apostle Paul and other witnesses) , saying that the day of the Lord has already come.’

Regarding Christian detractors, I am not one of them, tends to ignore not only the Jesus as Christ but the authenticity of the scripture itself. And in doing so, they consider the existence of historical Jesus but distorting the scripture regarding Jesus as in the case of the Jews, Islam and even Christians.

My intention is simple – to let truth comes out in the dark.[/indent][/quote]

You have to remember one person can have completely different values from another. This is always reflected in the writings of historians. Bias of perspective is innevitable. If these historians had witnessed the works of Jesus, then we would likely not have called them historians because they would have become disciples, and their work would have joined the ranks of other religious writings, such as the Scriptures. Because they did not have such a personal involvement in the works of Jesus, they likely heard of them from others. So with their records ultimately reflecting "hearsay", why would we not expect Jesus' works to be filtered of their miraculous nature. Its only miraculous to the person who witnesses the event, not the person who hears of the event from someone else.

As well, faith isn't that simple. There is definitely a logical progression of solid, interconnecting beliefs that are built to get to the point of accepting the Biblical version of Jesus via the historical version of Jesus, but you're not going to find the two accounts being exactly the same. God likes mystery. It keeps up on our toes and makes us value the journey of faith. You cannot make the connection between the two unless you consider the writings of the Apostles in light of their historical value. In the case of the Apostles, you have historians who are personally invested enough to speak of the miraculous nature of Jesus' miracles. As long as we have dates matching up between the writings of the Apostles and the writings of the secular historians, I find on reason not to give the Apostles the benefit of the doubt -- especially considering all the ongoing miracles that exist today within the Church. The Incorruptibles and the Eucharistic Miracles are enough to give the Apostles the extra credibility they require to take their account as historical fact. When you consider the whole big picture, faith is a reasonable conclusion.

Steve S -- abercius24
CatholicQandA.com

[reyb]

[quote name='my6in7' post='1360954' date='Aug 17 2007, 01:18 AM']So are you saying that history gives more crediblity to the Scriptures than it does to Jesus?[/quote]
[indent]Jesus is the message of the scripture. Jesus is the news and writers of the Book are the newscaster that is why you cannot see a book called ‘The Epistle of Jesus, The Christ’. But whether this Jesus is the Historical Jesus or not is something to be seen – this is the subject of our discussion. [/indent]

[reyb]

[indent]There is another thing I want to clarify regarding the chronological order of event following the death and resurrection of Jesus. Historical event are always in chronological order because of time element. Therefore, let us figure it out as if we were there in the crucifixion and please pardon me in using the word ‘zombie’ whenever I am referring to the ‘holy people who had died were raised to life’ – just to make it short in this presentation. [/indent]


[indent]In Matt 27:50-54

[color="#FF0000"]50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. [/color]

Okay. Jesus gave his life while on the cross. And then, what happen next

[color="#FF0000"]51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. [/color]

Okay. Whatever curtain, earth, and rock it is. And then….

[color="#FF0000"]52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.[/color]

Okay. There are the zombies. And then….

[color="#FF0000"]53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. [/color]

Here it says ‘after Jesus resurrection the zombies went into the holy city and appeared to many people. I want to give emphasis on this - ‘after Jesus Resurrection the zombies went and appeared’

It already accepted that Jesus Christ resurrected after 3 days. But how come the centurion and others saw ‘the appearance of the zombies in the holy city’ considering that these zombie only appeared after Jesus resurrection while he (the centurion) is still in front of the cross and Jesus seems still there?

Because in the next verse it is written

[color="#FF0000"]54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!" [/color]

Take note: they were terrified, and exclaimed ‘Surely he was the Song of God’[/indent]

[indent]Again, if this is a historical event, how come the centurion and others saw ‘all that had happened’? which is referring to events following the death of Jesus on the cross to wit; the curtain was torn, earth shook, rocks split, tombs open and the holy people who had died were raised to life, and after Jesus resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. [/indent]

[abercius24]

[quote name='reyb' post='1361007' date='Aug 17 2007, 05:28 AM'][indent]There is another thing I want to clarify regarding the chronological order of event following the death and resurrection of Jesus. Historical event are always in chronological order because of time element. Therefore, let us figure it out as if we were there in the crucifixion and please pardon me in using the word ‘zombie’ whenever I am referring to the ‘holy people who had died were raised to life’ – just to make it short in this presentation. [/indent]
[indent]In Matt 27:50-54

[color="#FF0000"]50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. [/color]

Okay. Jesus gave his life while on the cross. And then, what happen next

[color="#FF0000"]51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. [/color]

Okay. Whatever curtain, earth, and rock it is. And then….

[color="#FF0000"]52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.[/color]

Okay. There are the zombies. And then….

[color="#FF0000"]53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. [/color]

Here it says ‘after Jesus resurrection the zombies went into the holy city and appeared to many people. I want to give emphasis on this - ‘after Jesus Resurrection the zombies went and appeared’

It already accepted that Jesus Christ resurrected after 3 days. But how come the centurion and others saw ‘the appearance of the zombies in the holy city’ considering that these zombie only appeared after Jesus resurrection while he (the centurion) is still in front of the cross and Jesus seems still there?

Because in the next verse it is written

[color="#FF0000"]54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!" [/color]

Take note: they were terrified, and exclaimed ‘Surely he was the Song of God’[/indent]

[indent]Again, if this is a historical event, how come the centurion and others saw ‘all that had happened’? which is referring to events following the death of Jesus on the cross to wit; the curtain was torn, earth shook, rocks split, tombs open and the holy people who had died were raised to life, and after Jesus resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. [/indent][/quote]

I do prefer you not use the word "Zombies". "Resurrected Saints" sounds better. A Zombie is supposedly neither living nor dead -- undead as it were; freaks of nature. These folks were saints resurrected -- made alive again! They would have walked around as do you and I, probably in a more discreet fashion given the mystery they in themselves embodied. I don't think an element of creepiness would have followed them. More joy from their family members.

As the Jews of the Talmud deny that Jesus resurrected (and that Lazarus was ever really dead), they probably responded the same to the other saints who were resurrected. I suspect it was not as "showy" as you may think, though. God does not flaunt miracles lightly. He usually reserves them only to the faithful or to the few whose hearts He has chosen to work upon. As for the Holy of Holies cracking, Josephus leads us to believe the same thing -- that God had abandoned the Temple.

I also don't believe the Centurion saw the Resurrected Saints during or immediately after the crucifixion. I don't see that in the scriptures.

[reyb]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1361009' date='Aug 17 2007, 05:47 AM']I do prefer you not use the word "Zombies". "Resurrected Saints" sounds better. A Zombie is supposedly neither living nor dead -- undead as it were; freaks of nature. These folks were saints resurrected -- made alive again! They would have walked around as do you and I, probably in a more discreet fashion given the mystery they in themselves embodied. I don't think an element of creepiness would have followed them. More joy from their family members.

As the Jews of the Talmud deny that Jesus resurrected (and that Lazarus was ever really dead), they probably responded the same to the other saints who were resurrected. I suspect it was not as "showy" as you may think, though. God does not flaunt miracles lightly. He usually reserves them only to the faithful or to the few whose hearts He has chosen to work upon. As for the Holy of Holies cracking, Josephus leads us to believe the same thing -- that God had abandoned the Temple.

I also don't believe the Centurion saw the Resurrected Saints during or immediately after the crucifixion. I don't see that in the scriptures.[/quote]
[indent]yes, Resurrected Saint is better. Thank You.[/indent]

[abercius24]

[quote name='reyb' post='1361011' date='Aug 17 2007, 05:58 AM'][indent]yes, Resurrected Saint is better. Thank You.[/indent][/quote]

Thank you for being so gracious!

[reyb]

[indent]Matt 27:54

[color="#FF0000"]54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!" [/color]NIV

So what is the meaning of ‘all that had happened’? I mean, is it referring to what event?[/indent]

Edited August 17, 2007 by reyb

[abercius24]

[quote name='reyb' post='1361016' date='Aug 17 2007, 06:09 AM'][indent]Matt 27:54

[color="#FF0000"]54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!" [/color]NIV

So what is the meaning of ‘all that had happened’? I mean, is it referring to what event?[/indent][/quote]

I would imagine he was witnessing what was happening in his immediate vicinity and considering all that happened up to that point. I wouldn't think he was anywhere near a tomb to witness it open and a saint rise from within. "All that had happend" would more than likely refer to the holiness of Christ's sacrifice as a whole. He did die in quite a humble and giving manner, which must have been very unusual for a Centurion to witness. With Christ's humble death juxstaposed with an earthquake and all the religious turmoil debated between Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedrin, I would have come to the same conclusion as the Centurion -- "Surely this man is the Son of God."

[reyb]

[indent][color="#FF0000"]In Mark 15:38-39

38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39 And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God[/indent]![/color]

[indent]The centurion heard his cry and saw how he died. But what he hears and see in order for him to say 'Surely this man was the Son of God' as if he accepted Jesus as Christ? I mean, what event might bring him to change his mind? [/indent]

Edited August 17, 2007 by reyb

[abercius24]

[quote name='reyb' post='1361024' date='Aug 17 2007, 06:31 AM'][indent][color="#FF0000"]In Mark 15:38-39

38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39 And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God[/indent]![/color]

[indent]The centurion heard his cry and saw how he died. But what he hears and see in order for him to say 'Surely this man was the Son of God' as if he accepted Jesus as Christ? I mean, what event might bring him to change his mind? [/indent][/quote]

I think Mark is trying to emphasize the faith of the Centurion whereas some of the other Four Evangelists emphasize the events that surrounded Christ's death. Church tradition holds that this Centurion is the same one who asked Christ to save his servant's life. Church tradition also holds that this Centurion is also Cornelius from the Acts of the Apostles. If Church tradition is right, then Christ's death would have been a very emotionally and spiritually trying event for the Centurion. Knowing of the controversies surrounding Christ's testimony as claiming to be the Son of God, and then seeing Him die so willingly in the name of that belief, the Centurion would have likely found great inspiration from the Holy Spirit at that moment, leading him to recognize Christ as the Son of God.

Furthermore, the Centurion certainly did not see the curtain of the Holy of Holies torn as that scripture COULD imply. Gentiles were not allowed beyond the courtyard of the Temple, and the curtain to the Holy of Holies can't be seen unless you are in the Holy Place which is between the courtyard and the Holy of Holies. And Golgatha is just outside of the Temple walls and up a hill, nowhere near the courtyard. I think the event that truly caught the Centurion's attention was the earthquake, ultimately. The timing of such an event with Christ's death would be a distrubing coincidence.

[img]http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/O/F/map_JerTemple-l.jpg[/img]

Edited August 17, 2007 by abercius24