3 Quests for the Historical Jesus
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 08. 2024
- Over the centuries, numerous Bible scholars have suggested that the gospel accounts can’t be trusted. These scholars argue that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written too long after the life of Jesus, and they came from communities of later Christians, not eyewitnesses.
According to these scholars, the gospels turned a real man into a false god. The Jesus portrayed in the gospels is not the “historical Jesus” but the “Christ of faith,” exalted and deified by later Christians.
This argument launched a series of “quests” to identify the “real,” historical Jesus-which to some, were quests to explain away his divinity.
The debate has evolved over time, and the movement contains four main phases driven by numerous scholars and works.
***
Learn more about the life of Jesus: courses.zonder...
Please suggest the best books on 'Historical Jesus'
try josh mcdowell
Michael L. White and Paula Fredriksen have both put out good, fairly accessible books. Both are scholars writing to lay audiences.
Ed Sanders “The Figure of The Historical Jesus”
@@ragy1986 Reading his The Apostle Paul, now. Good stuff!
@@ragy1986 Ok
Right now we are living a fourth quest of historical Jesus, or another no quest and a revival of skepticism. For example, the younger generation of researchers like Bart Ehrman and Richard Dawkins who represent a small and growing group of researchers who actually can and dare think differently when older researchers don't can and dare. But still, they are currently very popular with the people and their CZcams channels and webinars are followed worldwide. And because they don’t think the same way as the older generation, it’s easier to trust younger researchers and give them more weight.
There is not a shred of evidence in the historical record that would support Jesus as ever having existed. Sorry
You are not speaking in a Lecture Hall devoid of sound amplification equipment. Why don't you speak in a normal voice?
There were 12 historians back then. And none of them ever mention Jesus.
@Lord Cobra If he was as described in the gospels he would have been extremely noteworthy! Josephus mentions many would be religious leaders and 'messiahs' and gives much detail of their lives and their fates, yet he never mentions Jesus.
@@Matthew_Holton There is a Jesus of Nazareth mentioned by Josephus, except there isn't because Christians added that shit to his work
@@joshuadougall7693 Yes that's true. Eusebius added it in the 4th century AD.
@Lord Cobra No, Josephus does not mention Jesus. The testimonium flavianum is a complete fabrication interpolation. Inserted crudely by Eusebius in the 4th century. The other reference ('Jesus who is called the Christ) is an obvious scribal insertion. That part was actually talking about Jesus, son of Dmanius who later became high priest.
Matt Holton as a non religious skeptic I agree with the vast majority of historians that a first century Jewish preacher known as Jesus of Nazareth most likely existed.
To understand clearly on historical Jesus, please suggests me here title of the book with authorship which is easy to understand.
the teacher is Strauss of Aberdeen college, for the Zondervan course I guess. The discussion of 3 phases of quest closely follows book "The Jesus Quest The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth" by Ben Witherington III, intervarsity press, 1995. After a historical summary back to 19nth century, It covers lots of approaches to "historical Jesus" theories, beginning critiquing the Jesus Seminar in the 1980's and continuing to different approaches by scholars similar to are part of the Jesus seminar down to about 1995. I am not a biblical scholar, it address's various attempts of this type of scholar to jettison various parts of the bible, build theories of Jesus based on various sociological, anthropological theories, add new parts of history. Witherington gives books credit for the light they do shed, while critiquing the critical (or not so critical) approached the different authors take. Does a good job holding the Jesus seminar up to skepticism of its considering itself "critical" scholarship. It shows Christianity's rootedness in the Jewish religion, first century Palestine, and first century ideas about biography. It weighs the seminar's use of sources like Josephus, later texts, dead sea scrolls vs the wider range of scholars (the Jesus seminar is very atypical sample). Witherington himself believes in a supernatural, historical, view of Jesus as God come to earth, resurrected to save us from our sins. He doesn't seem fundamentalist and is approachable for non-believers.
Amy Jill Levine a Jewish scholar of the new testament once CLEVERLEY observed that some assumptions of the new testaments can be THEOLOGICALLY SOUND but Historicallly they DONT MAKE SENSE. She feels that Jesus need to contextualized in his jewish historical context because he was JEW. In reclaiming him in this way , she thinks that the church might stop saying horrible things about Jews = his own ppl.
historical jesus does't mean magical jesus. he was a human. He was Batman, not Superman.
then if thats the case ,,,,if he was human,,,then out go the miracles,,,and out goes his "reseurrection" from the dead,,,and out goes the very premise of the christian religion! which is what should happen and we put this silly Son of God mythology that has caused the world so much pain and trouble,,,into the garbage can,,,,!
Jesus spoke of people like you
David Hurtado you mean people that use reason and logic? Yeah I can see how that would work against him.
bias is soaked over everything that this guy is saying
Goughy yep
@Goughy Bias about what?
I dont know if Jesus is the right god yall should worship but he's definitely real and was an angel..it's written in Quran.
"If you don't believe in Jesus, you're not a muslim" this were the exact verse as far as I remember
Ya know the Quaran ain't evidence
What are you on about Muslim have you never address that Muhammad wanted to marry 6 year old and did marry a 6 year old
Look in the Bible and you will find Him clearly there.
What he calls new evidence is merely new interpretations, nothing near proof. Why does he want it to be true?
ffs, i hate trying to learn about jesus, and everything is just christian propaganda! I want to see some dry neutral review of what is there, without personal opinions or beliefs involved.
damienkurast why do you hate to learn about Jesus?
@@kendallnagel9324 I think you read that wrong. I dont hate to learn about jesus and did not say that.
damienkurast “I hate trying to learn about Jesus” my bad if I misinterpreted that wrong. But still why do you hate trying to learn about Jesus?
@@kendallnagel9324 Why do you not read the entire sentence? It does not stop at the comma ","
damienkurast I actually stopped at the exclamation mark. But your right I should’ve read the whole thing.
Here here. Still remember clearly my first theology class on the historical Jesus.
At one time Moses was considered a historical figure and the Exodus a historical event. The consensus among historians, archaeologists and even Biblical scholars now is that both of them are mythical. Jesus is also now coming under similar scrutiny and serious, well qualified researchers are calling Jesus existence into doubt. Perhaps in a few more years he will join Moses as a myth.
@Lord Cobra Scholars do NOT consider Josephus to be evidence of Jesus. The testimonium flavianum has been considered a 4th century interpolation for over a hundred years. Tacitus is also under some question as to authenticity. Even if genuine Tacitus only offers evidence that Christians existed in Rome many decades after Jesus alleged death. Paul's writings, most of which we now know were later forgeries, are also under increasing question. Even if genuine he only describes James as being a 'brother of the lord' which was how followers of Jesus were often called in early Christianity, it does not necessarily imply familial relationship. Also Paul never refers to an earthly life or ministry of Jesus. His version of Jesus seems a better fit with the Philoan and Docetic idea of Jesus. The origin of a Euhemeristic Jesus seems to begin with Mark,written decades after the alleged life of Jesus by a non-jewish, non-eye-witness and earliest versions of which did not include the resurection! There really is no contemporary evidence of Jesus existence.
@Lord Cobra
'Matt Holton just because there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus that doesn’t mean that he didn’t exist.' - and it does not mean that he DID exist. I am not claiming for sure that he didn't exist, just that I withhold belief in his existence until there is sufficient evidence. I take the same attitude to all claims (including God's existence)
' It was Normal back then for people to be written about after their death.' And it was normal to write about people while they were alive. We have written evidence of many people in the 1st century, but nothing about Jesus.
'The earliest account of Socrates was written almost a century after his death, and no one has any problem believing that Socrates existed' - Wrong, plenty of people, including me, think it likely he was a fictional creation by Plato.
'Tacitus mentions Jesus being crucified under Pontius Pilate, and usually when Tacitus didn’t consider what he was writing to be reliable he would write a note on the side. Tacitus didn’t write a note on the side when he wrote about Jesus.' The Tacitus passage, if genuine (and this is in doubt), reflects what Christians in Rome were saying, this was well after the gospel of Mark was written so the story told in the book was common currency among Christians. Tacitus is a third hand account, with no verification and its validity is in question as no contemporary account said Nero blamed the Christians (which is what Tacitus said), or even mentioned Christians in connection of with Nero or the great fire.
'Paul was also known to have persecuted Christians before he saw that vision of Jesus appear to him' - known by whom? we only have Paul's word for that. We actually have no contemporary evidence of Paul either other than his alleged writings.
'Paul wasn’t even really interested in the life of Jesus, all he was concerned about was believing that he was the lord, but Paul does mention that Jesus was crucified.' Yes he does, but that only matches the Docetic version.
' The Christ myth theory isn’t taken seriously by any serious modern scholar.' - Wrong, an increasing number of scholars are talking it seriously.
@Lord Cobra 'Jesus wasn’t mentioned during his life though because most of his followers were probably illiterate' - but many people were literate in that period. There were some 30 historians, chroniclers, commentators and other literate people in that part of the world writing during that time that we know of and not a single one mentions Jesus. Many other religious leaders, faith healers and similar characters are mentioned, but not Jesus.
'I would consider the writing of Tacitus to be reliable because he was one of the greatest Roman historians. ' - According to what criteria. You need to read the current scholarly works questioning the validity of Tacitus. As I said, even if genuine, Tacitus can offer nothing more than confirmation that Christians existed in Rome and what they believed. This is next to valueless as evidence of Jesus existence.
'The majority of historians do agree that Jesus existed' - Yes, but there is a growing minority of a different opinion. This is similar the situation a few decades ago when most historians, archaeologists and biblical scholar slowly had to acknowledge that Moses never existed. Now the majority view of Moses is that he was a fictional character and the Exodus never happened.
I have read Erhman's book and Carriers (et al - there were several scholars writing the rebuttal) book tearing Erhman's argument apart. Erhman acknowledges the lack of evidence and I would be willing to bet that he like others will go over to the mythicist side in time.
I strongly recommend you read
www.amazon.co.uk/Ehrman-Quest-Historical-Jesus-Nazareth-ebook/dp/B00C9N0WBI/ref=sr_1_8?keywords=richard+carrier&qid=1559549832&s=gateway&sr=8-8
@Lord Cobra You seem to have ignored everything I posted. Is this someone else writing? Josephus doesn'tmention Jesus and Tacitus, even if genuine, only recounts what Christians say in Rome. There is also zero evidence of Nazareth, no reference to that village until the 4th century. Zero contemporary references to it.
@Lord Cobra There is vast evidence for Caesar. We have his own writing (quite a lot of it) the accounts from his generals and his contemporaries. He is referred to in literally thousands of documents, and inscriptions from that period including a great many from his own lifetime. Many people in that period had their births recorded, we have found many such records. We know Pilate and John the Baptist existed because we have contemporary records that refer to them. We have zero evidence for Jesus, except for the docetic tradition starting with Philo.He wrote around 25 AD, before the alleged time of Jesus death! I think the docetic view of Jesus predated the Euhemeristic view started by Mark.
Three quests that came up empty. I still have not encountered any credible evidence substantiating the historicity of Jesus.
There are literally 42 authors that wrote about historicity of Jesus, both christians and not, during 150 years since his birth. If that is not any credible evidence, you should think to reconsider if you truly know what evidence means in history.
@@davidlara993 Name one author (the best in your opinion) and let's examine what is actually stated and the source of the information. There should no reason whatever, if there are 42, that you can't name one.
@@theoskeptomai2535 I will name the 9 main sources, objectively (which mean that is not a question of greatness under a subjective consideration) and undenaible accepted by all the scholars and experts on the topic, for sure, that wrote within 150 years since Jesus Birth, something that is the best attested criteria for any antique character in the history. I shouldn´t really get into that with someone who claims something so ignorant as denying the historicity of Jesus, which, precisely, is YOUR duty to present evidence to support your positive claim about contradicting every single expert on the field, but the sources are very clear, that I will present them with no problem. I repeat, the nine secular sources accepted universally are:
- JOSEPHUS
- TACITUS
- PLINY THE YOUNGER
- PHLEGON
- LUCIAN
- CELSUS
- MARA BARSERAPION
- SUETONIS
-THALLUS
With only that, and with the rest, incluiding the christians authors, perfectly dated and veridic, if your point is denying it, you would probably be mocked at academical research but, if you consider yourself in a position to widespread such a truth that contradicts every single expert, what are you waiting? Go and present the evidences, we are waiting.
@@davidlara993 Since you cannot comprehend the meaning of 'one', I will choose the first of those nine. Let's examine the evidence. What did Flavius Josephus state about Jesus? Present the passage(s) and its source(s) (title).
@@theoskeptomai2535 I have told you that it is your need to present evidence against the historicity, as with the Main aspects of all sources, claiming that there is no "creíble" evidence is just false,you were unaware so it is you intellectual fairness to look for information or not or, if so, present them will contradict every single expert on the field. Try to do it in a peer reviewed journal, but don't expect to waste my time with a history denial or a mythicist, because it is simply absurd with all the evidence, objections rebutted and so on. Try harder and stop widespreading positive claims without any kind of argumentation. You insult a whole community of intellectuals with such behaviour. But, again, I encourage you to publish the evidence.
Why do American Christians love Donald Trump? More importantly, why do they pass over Christs message?
zavaros minus The Supporters love Trump, a man who has publicly flaunted most of the Ten Commandments and who has ignored the teachings of Jesus. Go figure.
Wow, and people claim that Christians are judgmental! The president has done much for this country in the last 3 years, all you have to do is look past the constant BS scandals that his opponents are trying to blind the American people with. And people that say that we pass over the message of Jesus like to imply that he was a socialist, and that is absurd!
All the NT writers are separate historians. Also as some mention Josephus & Tacitus who lived with people and family who lived at that time. Maybe, in a way, the most convincing is the writers of the Talmud. While it was not written down as a book until later, it claims to be the knowledge of the Rabbis for 100's of years before and during the 1st century.
Wait... so now the NT was the work of historians? And Josephus and Tacitus each lived with family members (of Jesus)?
@@MarcillaSmith Yes, they recorded the history of Jesus. No, Josephus and Tacitus lived during a time period that still had people who lived at the time of Jesus. Lastly the Talmud attests to Jesus, naturally in an unfavorable manner.
tral1 the Jewish scriptures attests to Wisdom coming down from Heaven to live with humankind, but that doesn't mean we have people trying to argue for a "historical Sophia."
Josephus and Tacitus lived at the same time as people who were fabricating gospel stories. I'm afraid I don't follow.
And am I to understand that everyone who writes about someone somehow becomes a historian? So JK Rolling is one of the most celebrated modern historians, I suppose?
@@MarcillaSmith Tamud is not scripture but it does reference Jesus in terms of him living. Ok, so we agree J&T recorded Jesus. Lastly, no not everyone, but I think the best selling most read book of all time should get a nod. Four people set out to independently write the history of Jesus. Read it, it's good, it's good news.
@@tomral1 TY for your concern. Rest assured I am quite familiar with the gospel, and have been known to teach a Bible study here and there.
Again, if the popularity of a story makes its author a historian and its characters historical, then what of J K Rolling? In any event, you are assigning identities and motivations to unknown person(s). This does not show integrity.
We did not agree as to who did or did not record "Jesus." I have a hard time believing this was merely an oversight on your part, particularly when I am already questioning your integrity.
You already said your piece about the Talmud. I offered a rebuttal, and you respond to it without addressing it.
How does this lack of integrity advance your argument for a historical Jesus or for the value of gospel values?
This guy read the wrong books he did offend people and it still dose this guy has 0 proofs of facts. If you want come talk never had a person say they don't believe.
Jesus is GOD!
czcams.com/video/zmEScIUcvz0/video.html nope
The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of 'Jesus the Nazarene':
1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).
2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).
3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh, which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).
No physical evidence for their physical claim. Just text from unknown sources.
@Jonathan Soko The existence of a Socrates is not important. What matters is the 'socratic method' of intellectual investigation. Christianity is a very historical religion with no physical evidence for an Adam, Abraham, Moses, or Jesus, etc. It has little intellectual method and lacks much in physical verification. Thus it is rejected as another Bronze Age myth.
A faith that is more method and little or no historical dynamic would be Buddhism. It is based on the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Ways to enlightenment. There is some notice to the life of Buddha but it is not central to the practice.
The onus is on the believer with their claim. If someone says they believe in the yeti/sasquatch I am under no obligation to jump in a jeep and drive around the woods to prove them wrong. They have to produce their evidence. You rely obscure texts from unknown sources and then make claims towards divinity.
@Jonathan Soko You did not get my point. The method of philosophical inquiry is known with or without a Socrates. I do not claim Socrates exists. It is not important. You need a historical Jesus since it is the source of your divinity claim.
@Jonathan Soko A personal attack does not help your cause. Produce physical evidence of your Jesus.
@Jonathan Soko Calling me names, very cruel, You still have not addressed my request for physical proof of your physical Jesus..
Like with Socrates
Why was Jesus white washed
Short answer is Christianity's spread to Europe through the Roman Empire. The idea was to depict him in an image Europeans would be comfortable with.
He is described as bronze skin whether you believe it or not but it's all bulshit anyway he was just a really nice man and a really good neighbor
czcams.com/video/zmEScIUcvz0/video.html
*Look up DIONYSUS, the Greek God Of Fertility.* He can turn Water INTO wine!(PRE-Christian Era) 🍷
Yeah it was all rehashed
czcams.com/video/zmEScIUcvz0/video.html
Waste of time,,hes not real.
TheShagdog1313 yes he is
@@vincentandrews6230 nope
TheShagdog1313 Without a doubt he is
@@vincentandrews6230 show me proof.
Still waiting for that proof,,,
Jesus is real Cut and dry
czcams.com/video/zmEScIUcvz0/video.html nope