Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm just throwing this out there from a Historical Jesus point of view. Though its very interesting. Jesus' contention with His family is clearly brought up in the Gospels. When you look at it from a scholarship perspective, Jesus devoting Himself to preaching an apocalyptic message over taking care of His family in the absence of Joseph, would be looked down upon in that culture. Its not like Jesus would have been a mainstream rabbi, or apart of the Sanhedrin. He would be the equivalent of someone holding up an "The End is Near" sign in the city streets today.
Society would tell Jesus to get a job if He lived today.
Jesus came from a relatively poor family. Being the oldest of His brothers and sisters, a lot would be expected on Him to carry the family name. It is generally believed the oldest son would take on the occupation of their fathers. In the case of Jesus, that occupation was craftsmanship. A lot of English translations of the New Testament state Joseph was a "carpenter". Yet the most accurate translation of the Greek word "tektōn" is artisan or craftsman, and is the basis for where we get our word 'architect" from.
Jesus following in the family business would have been considered a builder. No doubt He would have dealt with some woodworking, but it's most likely He worked with stone and stone masonry. He likely traveled with Joseph to different areas constructing buildings and other structures. This is what He did for most of His life. While working with His father Joseph, they may have had long discussions concerning Scripture and the Roman occupation. You can only imagine the bond Jesus had with Joseph. At some point, Joseph passes away, leaving the full responsibility of the family in Jesus' hands.
......
This is one of the most interesting details for me concerning Jesus. How He left everything behind in pursuit of this goal. Naturally looking at this, the world would condemn Jesus for doing such a thing, abandoning His family like that. Even more so given the culture of the oldest son having the responsibility of taking care of the family in the absence of the father. (And again, they were a poor family)
......
This is what can still be gleaned even if the claims of the Gospel and the New Testament aren't true. That's been my take. Yall give me your thoughts. What else could be learned from the Historical Jesus?
But the concensus accepts that the historical Jesus wasn't the eldest son of Joseph. His siblings were the children from Joseph's previous marriage.
Jesus' contention with His family is clearly brought up in the Gospels.
One thing I've always been amazed about with Jesus is the story about when he was twelve. He goes and gets lost from his family when they were heading home. They had to come back and look for him. When they found him he pretty much said "Well, where the heck do you think I would have been."
All I know is that if I had pulled a stunt like that when I was twelve I would have had my hide tanned and been grounded for about three months.
To me, the fact that Jesus pretty much got away with that without repercussions truly was a miracle.
One thing I've always been amazed about with Jesus is the story about when he was twelve. He goes and gets lost from his family when they were heading home. They had to come back and look for him. When they found him he pretty much said "Well, where the heck do you think I would have been."
All I know is that if I had pulled a stunt like that when I was twelve I would have had my hide tanned and been grounded for about three months.
To me, the fact that Jesus pretty much got away with that without repercussions truly was a miracle.
Well, Mary was probably afraid that if she did tan Jesus' hide she'd have been hit by a bolt out of the blue, accompanied by a booming voice, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well-pleased. Hands off the merchandise."
One has to wonder why only Luke records this. Matthew and John were there, wouldn't Jesus have relayed the incident to them first? Or did the whole thing, just like the angel comforting Jesus in Gethsemane, originate in Luke's fertile imagination?
It's shocking how people can fall for this propaganda without the ability to ask a single question with regards to the origins of these stories. The gospels were written by anonymous Greeks who weren't even there. Is it any wonder so much of the gospels contradict each other?
Today I want to give a discussion on what could still be gleaned from Jesus' life, if the claims of the Gospels aren't true. This is a take from the scholarly view of what they call the "Historical Jesus". First I'll outline the things scholars have a general consensus on given what is mentioned from the Gospels, and historical sources outside that context...
- It is generally accepted Jesus was from Nazareth.
- accepted Jesus had a large family.
- accepted Jesus was baptized by John. (May have been a disciple)
- accepted Jesus had His own disciples and taught
- accepted Jesus was crucified
- accepted Jesus' disciples preached He rose again
This is the basic consensus view of what most historians agree concerning Jesus. They believe it's possible Jesus at some point told His disciples He was the Messiah, but the claim of divinity was most likely made later by those same disciples. So let's take a look at things from this angle........
<<snipped>> tl;dr
Like I told you in another thread, I've been watching and reading all the sun-forums for over a decade.
Since non of the atheists have told you, I will. Here's what's wrong with your post:
These are the claims. They are not the evidence.
Cire references. Who are the historians who agree with this?
What are the historical sources outside the Gospels?
What do any of the things you mentioned have to do with the value of Jesus' teachings?
Since non of the atheists have told you, I will. Here's what's wrong with your post:
These are the claims. They are not the evidence.
Cite references. Who are the historians who agree with this?
What are the historical sources outside the Gospels?
What do any of the things you mentioned have to do with the value of Jesus' teachings?
It is hard to know where to begin with these posts. They are almost entirely sheer speculation. It would be like me posting about what could be learned from the Loch Ness monster.
But the concensus accepts that the historical Jesus wasn't the eldest son of Joseph. His siblings were the children from Joseph's previous marriage.
I wasn't aware of that consensus. I'll have to look this up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein
One thing I've always been amazed about with Jesus is the story about when he was twelve. He goes and gets lost from his family when they were heading home. They had to come back and look for him. When they found him he pretty much said "Well, where the heck do you think I would have been."
All I know is that if I had pulled a stunt like that when I was twelve I would have had my hide tanned and been grounded for about three months.
To me, the fact that Jesus pretty much got away with that without repercussions truly was a miracle.
I hear ya.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
A stone Mason, in my opinion that was his occupation.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Like I told you in another thread, I've been watching and reading all the sun-forums for over a decade.
Since non of the atheists have told you, I will. Here's what's wrong with your post:
These are the claims. They are not the evidence.
Cire references. Who are the historians who agree with this?
What are the historical sources outside the Gospels?
What do any of the things you mentioned have to do with the value of Jesus' teachings?
Well I say these are general things that are agreed upon concerning the Historical Jesus. The two main ones are Jesus being baptized by John, and His crucifixion. The most famous scholar concerning these things is Bart Ehrman. Anything "outside the Gospels" won't go into detail about Jesus' life. They will only speak to His following. The things I mentioned about the Historical Jesus, scholars generally agree are probably true.
So if we just consider the Historical Jesus (Not the beliefs about Him concerning Him being Savior), what can we glean from His life and teachings? Did He bring anything new to the table concerning how people should conduct themselves? What do we make of Him giving up His family in devotion to preaching the message? Was He rewarded for His efforts?
so questionable as to be virtually no evidence at all?
Actually, if God were God, he would do exactly what he's done - erase all evidence, leaving nothing but your faith.
You either believe - or you don't. This was true in Jesus' own time - not just now. Many - many - people (of the scripture) did not have faith - even though there is ample "evidence" (er, writing...) of "miracles." The proof was there, yet some did not believe. (This is the parable, not necessarily the historical fact - bear with me.) So to say God would leave incontrovertible evidence is a contradiction of what actually happens, even in the bible.
Meantime, although scant (no?) historical evidence exists for Jesus, plenty exists for many of the folks mentioned in the Old Testament, so you can disregard the NT due to "lack of evidence" but it's more difficult to do so with the OT. Not saying it proves God - just that it proves contemporaries had "reason to believe." And if THAT (the OT) is true, then, the NT probably is too.
Well I say these are general things that are agreed upon concerning the Historical Jesus. The two main ones are Jesus being baptized by John, and His crucifixion. The most famous scholar concerning these things is Bart Ehrman. Anything "outside the Gospels" won't go into detail about Jesus' life. They will only speak to His following. The things I mentioned about the Historical Jesus, scholars generally agree are probably true.
So if we just consider the Historical Jesus (Not the beliefs about Him concerning Him being Savior), what can we glean from His life and teachings? Did He bring anything new to the table concerning how people should conduct themselves? What do we make of Him giving up His family in devotion to preaching the message? Was He rewarded for His efforts?
Bart Ehrman had a degree from the Moody Bible Institute and a MDiv (Master of Divinity). I asked you to provide the names of historians, not ministers. It appears you don't have any, just as I suspected.
You said "The things I mentioned about the Historical Jesus, scholars generally agree are probably true." What any reasonable discuss would have to include is: What historical scholars agree with you? We need names and credentials. Otherwise, just say it is your opinion and you have nothing to back it up.
So, that leaves us still waiting for you to provide some sources for what you call "Historical Jesus."
You said :What do we make of Him giving up His family in devotion to preaching the message? " That raises this question: What makes you think he gave up his family? His mother was there when he was crucified.
You seem to be throwing out opinions with nothing to back them up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Though its very interesting. Jesus' contention with His family is clearly brought up in the Gospels. When you look at it from a scholarship perspective, Jesus devoting Himself to preaching an apocalyptic message over taking care of His family in the absence of Joseph, would be looked down upon in that culture. Its not like Jesus would have been a mainstream rabbi, or apart of the Sanhedrin. He would be the equivalent of someone holding up an "The End is Near" sign in the city streets today.
