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.
He could not have been a Freemason since it traces its origins back to the Middle Ages. But it's not bad company; George Washington, Ben Franklin, Paul Revere, John Hancock, John Marshall were Freemasons. Thomas Jefferson wasn't. For his personal use, Jefferson created what has become known as the "Jefferson Bible." It is still in print. It removes almost all of the miracles and the resurrection. https://www.monticello.org/research-...esus-nazareth/
He could not have been a Freemason since it traces its origins back to the Middle Ages. But it's not bad company; George Washington, Ben Franklin, Paul Revere were Freemasons. Thomas Jefferson wasn't. For his personal use, Jefferson created what has become known as the "Jefferson Bible." It is still in print. It removes almost all of the miracles and the resurrection. https://www.monticello.org/research-...esus-nazareth/
Good to know, my uncles still attend but I never heard of their bible. My mom was always in ministry and there was a freemason that came to our coffee house and this man always had this freemason charm on a necklace. My mother recognized the charm and told the man there was a written prayer inside to the illuminator or some such, I was young, they began to argue and they cracked it open and it was just what she said it would be, I mean, not that it means anything, but I will never forget it.
He could not have been a Freemason since it traces its origins back to the Middle Ages. But it's not bad company; George Washington, Ben Franklin, Paul Revere, John Hancock, John Marshall were Freemasons
Alexander the Great, ...
Quote:
... . Thomas Jefferson wasn't. For his personal use, Jefferson created what has become known as the "Jefferson Bible." It is still in print. It removes almost all of the miracles and the resurrection.
Why should anyone presume that claims of existence are any more authoritative or reasonable than claims of actions? Where does one draw the line? Maybe the authors created an amalgamation of people into a single character? Maybe they were writing in parables, or with wishful thinking? It seems weird to discount the gospels except about certain things -- there is no clear line one can draw which would distinguish between what is an isn't useful.
Ultimately when it comes to the Historical Jesus, its not about proving the claims said of Him, but the probability of His existence and life. Of course in this thread I'm simply laying out what leading scholars in this area agree upon. Could Jesus be a composite of folks who lived during that time, perhaps. Yet given His name, it was a very common name during that time (even the shortened Yeshua usage versus Yehoshua was common during that time) Many of the places mentioned in the Gospels are verified to have existed, such as The Pool of Bethesda and the Pool of Siloam. The Gospels identify the Roman governor over Judea at the time, Pilate, and the High Priests. That's pretty good for a bunch of anonymous Greek authors writing supposedly 50+ years after Jesus' life on earth. We can also tell from Mark's Gospel, he most likely had a written Aramaic source. We know Aramaic was the common language where Jesus came from. So the earliest written accounts of Jesus most likely were in Aramaic, and thus could have been written by those who knew Jesus. These are the things scholars look into to say Jesus most likely existed and was a real figure.
All that said, what can we learn from this Man's life? I'm still waiting for opinions on what yall think about Jesus leaving His family to preach His message. Was it honorable, dishonorable? (Given the fact with Joseph gone, it was the eldest son's responsibility to take care of the family and his mother) When we look at the founder of Buddhism for instance, it is said he was a prince. So his family wouldn't care about him going off on a spiritual journey, they were rich! It is said Muhammad's first wife was a wealthy woman, so again she was good. So I am curious to know what yall think about Jesus leaving His family behind.
All that said, what can we learn from this Man's life? I'm still waiting for opinions on what yall think about Jesus leaving His family to preach His message. Was it honorable, dishonorable? (Given the fact with Joseph gone, it was the eldest son's responsibility to take care of the family and his mother) When we look at the founder of Buddhism for instance, it is said he was a prince. So his family wouldn't care about him going off on a spiritual journey, they were rich! It is said Muhammad's first wife was a wealthy woman, so again she was good. So I am curious to know what yall think about Jesus leaving His family behind.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus was an historical person, we have too little info about how the launch of his public ministry impacted his family. It isn't unlikely that it was a source of some hardship to the family, but we are left to guess. It seems significant that the gospels don't see fit to remark upon it. Either they didn't want to because it would have been embarrassing or easily misunderstood, or for some reason it just wasn't a factor. Jesus might have left his four younger brothers in charge of a going concern. Jesus might have had supporters who assisted or protected the extended family as a way of supporting Jesus.
You're also forgetting that just the fact that Jesus was controversial and upsetting to established authority might have made his extended family targets of harassment or persecution, no matter their economic situation. But of course that's speculative, there's nothing in the gospel OR historical record concerning it.
Regarding Buddha, his family was fine economically but according to the tale, were greatly upset at his abandoning them. He and his wife had just had a newborn child IIRC. There are hardships beyond economic ones.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus was an historical person, we have too little info about how the launch of his public ministry impacted his family. It isn't unlikely that it was a source of some hardship to the family, but we are left to guess. It seems significant that the gospels don't see fit to remark upon it. Either they didn't want to because it would have been embarrassing or easily misunderstood, or for some reason it just wasn't a factor. Jesus might have left his four younger brothers in charge of a going concern. Jesus might have had supporters who assisted or protected the extended family as a way of supporting Jesus.
You're also forgetting that just the fact that Jesus was controversial and upsetting to established authority might have made his extended family targets of harassment or persecution, no matter their economic situation.
Regarding Buddha, his family was fine economically but according to the tale, were greatly upset at his abandoning them. He and his wife had just had a newborn child IIRC. There are hardships beyond economic ones.
You're right about Buddha. From my own hearing (someone correct me if I'm wrong), I believe his family tried to hide the fact of poverty while he was growing up. (Due to a prophecy made about him) Yet all in all, they were rich. I'm not saying money equals happiness, but with money they can survive.
You're right about Jesus' ministry could have created other problems for His family, such as making them targets for ridicule. Just speaking in probabilities if Jesus existed, and using the circumstances of the day and pieces of the Gospels to paint a possible picture for Jesus actual life, His family was highly upset with Jesus. This contention is shown with them coming to take Him home, and His brothers not believing His message (As John's Gospel points out). Yep, its possible Jesus' brothers were capable of taking care of the family, and/or Jesus' followers offering assistance.
Because Jesus taught the arrival of God's kingdom, and a lot of His teachings put emphasis on people focusing on its advancement, there are several indications that Jesus Himself left His family behind without fully knowing whether they would be okay. Jesus according to the Gospels taught to leave family behind, let the dead bury their dead, and anyone looking back after putting their hand to the plow is no good for the work of the kingdom. If He indeed taught these things, He Himself probably did it.
In fairness, historicism IS the majority viewpoint in academia, and mythicism the minority position. But the context is that most of the folks in ancient history, biblical archaeology, and related fields are beholden to church-connected funding. Also historians have a pretty low bar to what constitutes a consensus. Rather than "what can proven or likely to be true" it is more "what is least likely to be untrue based on whatever sparse evidence there is". As such ... who is the majority opinion here doesn't carry much weight.
Erhman is no longer a Biblical literalist / inerrantist (in fact he's an agnostic) and while IIRC he leans toward a historic Jesus, at the same time, he does not believe in Bible Jesus, the Miracle-Working God-Man(tm). Many historicists are like that. Just because they think Jesus was a historic discrete person and not a composite or invention, does not mean that they believe Jesus is the son of god and risen from the dead. That is an infinitely larger lift. Yet many Christians seem to equate the two, like it is some kind of "gotcha".
All that said, I agree, without citations (or personal credentials and research in a relevant field), anyone is just spouting speculation and opinion.
As a credentialed academician, I am curious what sort of credentials or citations would make them other than speculation and opinion since they occurred over two millennia ago and counting.
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.
It is said Muhammad's first wife was a wealthy woman, so again she was good. So I am curious to know what yall think about Jesus leaving His family behind.
