Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[eider]

Historical Jesus......10
The Poor!
There was not much of a 'middle class' in early 1st century Palestinian provinces. The northern provinces were mostly occupied by the low or working classes, and these had 'levels' all of their own. The laws of Moses had been quite remarkable in that they were the blueprint for a strong, cohesive, healthy, fast growing, secure and safe people, and success depended upon everybody being a part of the whole and being taken care of. Everybody had to be looked after regardless of ability or disability.
But when these laws were ignored, failure would soon follow on.

The Baptist and Jesus both were amongst those who were outraged by unreasonable wealth in a land full of unreasonable poverty and if the laws were restored then extreme poverty would reduce. Where Christianity picks out the odd sentence to promote the exact opposite is indicative of Christianity's hypocrisy, imo.

Jesus spoke out against unreasonable wealth and his actions often supported the old laws such as gleaning in fields, or his constant criticism of richness. Here are some of those old laws, in any order, just their locations, for any who are interested to look them up.
Notice how many of these laws exist today in our countries. The large food markets where I live have recently all started to give late sell-by date products to food-banks and other charities rather than offer them for lower prices or destroy them. Interesting.

Ex 23:6
Ex. 22:24
Ex. 22:21
Lev.19:9
Lev. 23:22
Lev.19:10
Deut. 24:10
Deut. 24:12
Deut. 15:9
Deut. 24:17
Deut. 14:28-29
Deut. 15:2
Deut. 15:7
Deut. 15:11
Deut. 24:19 -20
Deut. 24:21
Deut.24:6

[Cavebear]

Well, you do have to admit that the existence of a god who essentially sent itself to be born human of a virgin woman IS among the more unlikely events in history...

......... and more ........  Mind boggling.

Now that we know about countless trillions of planets circulating countless stars in billions of galaxies in this one universe which might be a tiny fraction of everything, you'd think that the Abrahamic religions would just evaporate....... but .........

Folks who debate against Christ and Theism on Christian forums tend to get dismissed as irritations, nutters, lost souls in need of saving etc, but HJ researchers who debate for a real Jesus who had a small following and failed after a short time, they are are the ones who are dubbed 'Enemies of the Cross' and most hated.....

If it was all real and I had a choice I would definitely plump for the Islamic heaven of beautiful water gardens where I could lounge whilst being 'looked after' by gorgeous dark eyed houris (yes!...yes!), and be able to glance over the edge of heaven to see all those b-------s that I disliked in life as they writhe in eternal agony. Now who the hell would choose Christianity over all that? But they do.

"Now that we know about countless trillions of planets circulating countless stars in billions of galaxies in this one universe which might be a tiny fraction of everything, you'd think that the Abrahamic religions would just evaporate....... but ........."

Yeah, they should, but they are just "here" not elsewhere. And the more we learn about the requirements for intelligent life elsewhere, the less the Drake Equation seems to work. A WHOLE LOT more considerations seem to need to be added. Big Moon compared to Planet, some external and internal disasters "almost but not quite" extinguishing life, not being too near the center or outer edge of the galaxy, a Jupiter at the right distance to prevent too many asteroids bombarding Earth at the wrong times, etc.

"If it was all real and I had a choice I would definitely plump for the Islamic heaven of beautiful water gardens where I could lounge whilst being 'looked after' by gorgeous dark eyed houris (yes!...yes!)"

Are those "houris" Earthly women in Moslem "heaven" or just Allah-creations for your pleasure? If they are simulacrums, it is rather a bit of human-on-something-else sex. If it is Earthly women, that is really demeaning to them.

"glance over the edge of heaven to see all those b-------s that I disliked in life as they writhe in eternal agony".

The concept of enjoying "eternal agony" of anyone is kind of sick...

"Folks who debate against Christ and Theism on Christian forums tend to get dismissed as irritations, nutters, lost souls in need of saving etc, but HJ researchers who debate for a real Jesus who had a small following and failed after a short time, they are are the ones who are dubbed 'Enemies of the Cross' and most hated"

The closer one is in ideology but varying slightly, the more the small differences matter. I really think that most theists are more concerned with which end of the egg to crack, then whether to crack the egg at all.

Let's say Christians, Jews and Moslems. A mere matter of which messiah was the "right" one. Atheists don't care a whit about the question. But the theists kill each other about the question! It has been going on for 2,000 years and shows no signs of stopping.

In many beliefs, no one is more hated than one who "barely" disagrees with you. Cracks me up.

Did I miss anything?

[eider]

Are those "houris" Earthly women in Moslem "heaven" or just Allah-creations for your pleasure?  If they are simulacrums, it is rather a bit of human-on-something-else sex.  If it is Earthly women, that is really demeaning to them.

The concept of enjoying "eternal agony" of anyone is kind of sick...

You mistake easy humour for serious mindset? OK........

The closer one is in ideology but varying slightly, the more the small differences matter.  I really think that most theists are more concerned with which end of the egg to crack, then whether to crack the egg at all. 

Yes?  I rather think that theists tend to live in various depths of hope for eternal existence. 

Let's say Christians, Jews and Moslems.  A mere matter of which messiah was the "right" one.  Atheists don't care a whit about the question.  But the theists kill each other about the question!   It has been going on for 2,000 years and shows no signs of stopping.

I know, they do... kill each other and many other folks as well. But I've never ever heard of atheism killing folks..... or have I?
I'm not interested in what theists do, more in what humans are capable of. 

In many beliefs, no one is more hated than one who "barely" disagrees with you.  Cracks me up.  

Did I miss anything?

Obviously you did. If you think that HJ research leads to 'barely' disagreeing with theism then I would chuckle at that.
Researchers like Geza Vermes, previously a Christian (Catholic?) priest left the church behind.
HJ leaves Christianity behind.

[Bucky Ball]

Historical Jesus......10
The Poor!
There was not much of a 'middle class' in early 1st century Palestinian provinces.  The northern provinces were mostly occupied by the low or working classes, and these had 'levels' all of their own.  The laws of Moses had been quite remarkable in that they were the blueprint for a strong, cohesive, healthy, fast growing, secure and safe people, and success depended upon everybody being a part of the whole and being taken care of.  Everybody had to be looked after regardless of ability or disability.
But when these laws were ignored, failure would soon follow on.

The Baptist and Jesus both were amongst those who were outraged by unreasonable wealth in a land full of unreasonable poverty and if the laws were restored then extreme poverty would reduce. Where Christianity picks out the odd sentence to promote the exact opposite is indicative of Christianity's hypocrisy, imo.

Jesus spoke out against unreasonable wealth and his actions often supported the old laws such as gleaning in fields, or his constant criticism of richness. Here are some of those old laws, in any order, just their locations, for any who are interested to look them up.
Notice how many of these laws exist today in our countries.  The large food markets where I live have recently all started to give late sell-by date products to food-banks and other charities rather than offer them for lower prices or destroy them.  Interesting.

Ex 23:6
Ex. 22:24
Ex. 22:21
Lev.19:9  
Lev. 23:22
Lev.19:10
Deut. 24:10
Deut. 24:12
Deut. 15:9
Deut. 24:17
Deut. 14:28-29
Deut. 15:2
Deut. 15:7
Deut. 15:11
Deut. 24:19 -20
Deut. 24:21
Deut.24:6

You have no evidence any laws were ignored, and you have not said which ones and in what ways exactly they were broken, and what your EVIDENCE is for your claims.
What "unreasonable wealth". That's nothing but your bias speaking. He said it would be hard for the rich to get into heaven, (but not impossible).
You personal prejudice is showing. It's nothing else. Fail.

You have no evidence Jesus said anything, much less speaking out against anything.
In fact the writers had their Jesus say
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18.

What we have here is not BJ or HJ, but e'smuJ.
eider's made up Jesus.

No historical evidence, facts or references.
Just more Bible bullshit.

[Cavebear]

Are those "houris" Earthly women in Moslem "heaven" or just Allah-creations for your pleasure?  If they are simulacrums, it is rather a bit of human-on-something-else sex.  If it is Earthly women, that is really demeaning to them.

The concept of enjoying "eternal agony" of anyone is kind of sick...

You mistake easy humour for serious mindset? OK........

The closer one is in ideology but varying slightly, the more the small differences matter.  I really think that most theists are more concerned with which end of the egg to crack, then whether to crack the egg at all. 

Yes?  I rather think that theists tend to live in various depths of hope for eternal existence. 

Let's say Christians, Jews and Moslems.  A mere matter of which messiah was the "right" one.  Atheists don't care a whit about the question.  But the theists kill each other about the question!   It has been going on for 2,000 years and shows no signs of stopping.

I know, they do... kill each other and many other folks as well. But I've never ever heard of atheism killing folks..... or have I?
I'm not interested in what theists do, more in what humans are capable of. 

In many beliefs, no one is more hated than one who "barely" disagrees with you.  Cracks me up.  

Did I miss anything?

Obviously you did. If you think that HJ research leads to 'barely' disagreeing with theism then I would chuckle at that.
Researchers like Geza Vermes, previously a Christian (Catholic?) priest left the church behind.
HJ leaves Christianity behind.

So HJ involves J as a real person but not a deity? What's the point of that? Isn't J just another preacher among 1,000's of others otherwise?

[Inkubus]

you'd think that the Abrahamic religions would just evaporate....... but .........

It would.... But....

Warning! Images of an obscene nature!

Show ContentSpoiler:

 Abandon All Hope

[Cavebear]

you'd think that the Abrahamic religions would just evaporate....... but .........

It would.... But....

Warning! Images of an obscene nature!

Show ContentSpoiler:

 Abandon All Hope

Darn, I was hoping for images.

[eider]

So HJ involves J as a real person but not a deity? 

Yes. Of course.

What's the point of that?

It's just some history that researchers try to discover, their opinions mostly based upon the balance of possibilities and probabilities. That's what most history is......... 
If you don't think a particular person or time is worth researching then there are plenty of others to seek out.
For instance, the Druids would be a tough subject for research.

 

Isn't J just another preacher among 1,000's of others otherwise?

Ah!  Do you think that, say, a Union official seeking a better deal for union members is just 'another preacher?' Jesus was just a bloke seeking better conditions for working people imo. 
The whole point of HJ research (for me) is trying to discover who the bloke really was, and I don't think he was a teacher, a preacher or a religious proselytizer, but a rebel against a corrupted fat quisling leadership. 

That's it. 
Look, I could have got interested in collecting model trains or something....somehow I chose to study some HJ.

[eider]

It would.... But....

Warning! Images of an obscene nature!

Show ContentSpoiler:

 Abandon All Hope

Darn, I was hoping for images.

I looked! A sneaky peek....... and .......

[Cavebear]

So HJ involves J as a real person but not a deity? 

Yes. Of course.

What's the point of that?

It's just some history that researchers try to discover, their opinions mostly based upon the balance of possibilities and probabilities. That's what most history is......... 
If you don't think a particular person or time is worth researching then there are plenty of others to seek out.
For instance, the Druids would be a tough subject for research.

 Isn't J just another preacher among 1,000's of others otherwise?

Ah!  Do you think that, say, a Union official seeking a better deal for union members is just 'another preacher?' Jesus was just a bloke seeking better conditions for working people imo. 
The whole point of HJ research (for me) is trying to discover who the bloke really was, and I don't think he was a teacher, a preacher or a religious proselytizer, but a rebel against a corrupted fat quisling leadership. 

That's it. 
Look, I could have got interested in collecting model trains or something....somehow I chose to study some HJ.
[/quote]

If you think HJ was just "a rebel", that's fine with me. Lots of them around that time. And all pretty meaningless.

[Inkubus]

...No historical evidence, facts or references.
Just more Bible bullshit.

We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity.

Robert Green Ingersoll.

[Rhythmcs]

So HJ involves J as a real person but not a deity?  What's the point of that?  Isn't J just another preacher among 1,000's of others otherwise?

If you think HJ was just "a rebel", that's fine with me.  Lots of them around that time.  And all pretty meaningless.

HJ of the consensus was neither a preacher nor a rebel, amusingly. Those who prefer a strictly jewish jesus..for example, can't have HJ rebelling against his peers - while those who would prefer a preacher dropping nuggets of philosophic wisdom in sermons can't drop the romanization. Ultimately, HJ becomes a historic nobody/anybody, in order to accommodate as many of the divergent and often directly antithetical notions that various scholars hold about whomever they thought he was and however they think hj is best arrived at - no agreement there either. There was no other way to arrive at a negotiated consensus among those scholars.

[Bucky Ball]

bla bla bla
That's it. 
Look, I could have got interested in collecting model trains or something....somehow I chose to study some HJ.

Except all you did was read the Bible and make up shit.
You *claim* to have studied something, yet there is not a shred of evidence for that.
You don't know anything about the debate, the culture, the times, or even the basics of history.
You are unable to support even the most basic of your assertions. You nothing but a fraud.
You actually studied nothing. You *claim* to have ... in fact you haven't and all your assertions are worthless.

[Free]

Just for the hell of it I took the first line of your list and did a little research.  By coincidence there were ten names in that line and here is the result.

Rudolf Karl Bultmann was a German Lutheran theologian and professor of the New Testament at the University of Marburg.
 
 
Frederick Fyvie Bruce FBA, usually cited as F. F. Bruce, was a Scottish biblical scholar who supported the historical reliability of the New Testament.
 
 
Charles Harold Dodd CH FBA was a Welsh New Testament scholar and influential Protestant theologian.
 
 
Neil R. Lightfoot (PhD, Duke University) serves as Frank Pack Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Abilene Christian University in Abilene, Texas.
 
 
Joseph Augustine Fitzmyer SJ was an American Jesuit priest and professor who taught at The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. Fitzmyer specialized in biblical studies, particularly the New Testament.
 
John Howard Yoder was an American theologian and ethicist best known for his defense of Christian pacifism. His most influential book was The Politics of Jesus, which was first published in 1972. Yoder was a Mennonite and wrote from an Anabaptist perspective.
 
Luke Timothy Johnson is an American New Testament scholar and historian of early Christianity. He is the Robert W. Woodruff Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Candler School of Theology
 
 
John Dominic Crossan is an Irish-American New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, former Catholic priest who was a prominent member of the Jesus Seminar, and emeritus professor at DePaul University.
 
Géza Vermes, FBA was a British academic, Biblical scholar, and Judaist of Hungarian Jewish descent—one who also served as a Catholic priest in his youth—and scholar specialized in the field of the history of religion, particularly ancient Judaism and early Christianity.
 
 
Bruce D. Chilton is an American scholar of early Christianity and Judaism. He is Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion at Bard College, former Rector of the Church of St John the Evangelist

What a surprise.  I went 10 for 10 in bible thumpers!  But what is their evidence for such beliefs?  Ultimately it is those fucking gospels which is all they or you have and I know you do not consider those to be primary sources.

But here is another example for you - one which will not run into your apparent confirmation bias. Surah 54:1 reports that "allah" split the moon.  This site:  https://lifeinsaudiarabia.net/how-prophe...n-in-half/  provides the names of "witnesses" who saw the moon split in half.
Am I to assume that your willingness to believe in silly religious shit extends to Islam?  Or do you draw the line in the sand?

So, no.  I am not impressed by your list of theologians who claim that it is all real.  I like to look at the evidence and think for myself without relying on people with an agenda.

And I think your gospels are a pile of shit.

So now you assert that because they believe in God, they MUST be faulty in their reasoning that there was a Jesus called Christ who was executed by Pilate circa CE33?

And it's not lost on me how you cherry picked only those who believe in God and ignored the fact that there are also secular historians in the list who came to the same conclusion as the God fearing historians.

How do you explain that?

[Free]

According to who?

Well, you do have to admit that the existence of a god who essentially sent itself to be born human of a virgin woman IS among the more unlikely events in history...

^^^^ This is an example of what I mean. I am not arguing that the water walking Christ depicted in the Gospels is real, but only that that guy is an embellishment of the actual historical person.

[Free]

Really? Here's the list again.

Rudolf Bultmann, F. F. Bruce, C. H. Dodd, Neil R. Lightfoot, Joseph Fitzmyer, John Howard Yoder, Luke Timothy Johnson, John Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes, Bruce Chilton, C. Stephen Evans, Craig A. Evans, Craig Blomberg, Leon Morris, Peter H. Davids, Peter Enns, Paul R. Eddy, Paul Wegner, John Walton, Jonathan Laansma, Darrell Bock, Dale C. Allison Jr., Richard B. Hays, Richard Horsley, Walter Brueggemann, James Charlesworth, Colin Hemer, Carey C. Newman, Michael W. Holmes, E. A. Judge, James S. Jeffers, Martin Hengel, Wayne Meeks, Dale B. Martin, Bart Ehrman, Rowan Williams, Marcus Borg, E. P. Sanders, Kenneth Bailey, Ben F. Meyer, N. T. Wright, James D. G. Dunn, Scot McKnight, Anthony Thiselton, Calvin Roetzel, Ben Witherington, Paul L. Maier, John P. Meier, Graham Twelftree, Birger Gerhardsson, Bruce Metzger, David L. Dungan, Ronald Nash, Leon McKenzie, Gary Habermas, J. Albert Harrill, Nicholas Perrin, G. K. Beale, Margaret Barker, Oscar Skarsaune, Andrew McGowan, Paul F. Bradshaw, John R. Lanci, Larry Hurtado, Gordon Fee, Birger Pearson, Karen Armstrong, Paula Fredriksen, James Robinson, Marvin Meyer, Markus Bockmuehl, Douglas Campbell, Peter Judge, Mark Goodacre, James Tabor, Hershel Shanks, Jean-Pierre Isbout.

And that's the tip of the iceberg, and they ALL agree that a man named Jesus, who was regarded as a Christ, was executed by Pontius Pilare circa CE 33.

Now let's see your list. I'll even start you off.

Robert Price, Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier...

And here is a short list of a mixed bag of these historians and others and their qualifications.

Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire

Maurice Casey, Nottingham University

Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

NT Wright, Oxford & St Andrews Universities

Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University

Geza Vermes, Oxford University

Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary

M A Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

Larry Hurtado, Emeritus Professor, Edinburgh University

Prof Craig Evans, Arcadia Divinity College, Arcadia University

J Paget, Cambridge University

Emeritus Professor Edwin Judge, Ancient History Research Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney

A.E. Harvey, formerly at Oxford University

EP Sanders, Oxford & Duke Universities

You were asked for the names of historians not theologians.

They are all historians.

[Bucky Ball]

I've always said that any historian or otherwise (religious) scholar is ethically bound to recuse from a debate
in which his job would be ended, if she/he were to reach a position not embraced by the religious community which founded, runs or is supported by a religious body.
https://www.historians.org/jobs-and-prof...al-conduct
There is no "one" view in History. We all know we don't agree on this subject. Whether or not there was an actual historical person the legends were built on is rather irrelevant.
Scholars (yeah the consensus) do not hold the gospels to be "historical". The nature of the hundreds of other gospels demonstrates what passed for a "gospel" back then.
The fact that, included in Jesusism, are a number of "memes" that we know now were floating around in the ancient Near East, (dying and rising gods, 3 days in a tomb, miracle workers).
Funny they all got included in the the stories about him. It makes no difference at all to human lives in 2022 whether there was a Jesus or not. How long will humans continue to reference this character ?
Does anyone actually think humans will still be "preaching" this dude in 10,000 years ? LOL.

"Multiple, conflicting perspectives are among the truths of history."

[Inkubus]

...So, no. I am not impressed by your list of theologians who claim that it is all real.  I like to look at the evidence and think for myself without relying on people with an agenda.

So now you assert that because they believe in God, they MUST be faulty in their reasoning...

No. Not faulty reasoning, they are lying. If they were capable of reason they wouldn't be theologians.

Have you ever wondered why homeopaths don't do placebo controlled trials?

Or why the geezer who invented tetraethyl lead continued to promote the shit even though he knew in was deadly poisonous?

Or the tobacco companies refusal to admit their products were killing people by the millions?

Theology is the study and promotion of theology, and the truth be damned.

The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.

Thomas Paine.

[Minimalist]

So now you assert that because they believe in God, they MUST be faulty in their reasoning...

Well, now it is technically called "confirmation bias" in that they see what they are desperate to see but I really don't have a problem with your term...."faulty reasoning!"  See?  We can agree!

I think Ink's term "lying" is a little strong.  I save "lying" for politicians.

[Free]

So now you assert that because they believe in God, they MUST be faulty in their reasoning...

Well, now it is technically called "confirmation bias" in that they see what they are desperate to see but I really don't have a problem with your term...."faulty reasoning!"  See?  We can agree!

I think Ink's term "lying" is a little strong.  I save "lying" for politicians.

So what do you say of the secular historians who used the same evidence and reasoning as the religious nutters, and yet arrive at the same conclusion that there was a Jesus called Christ who was executed by Pontius Pilate circa CE33? Since they are not employing confirmation bias, why then do you insist the religious historians are?

Since it's exactly the same evidence and reasoning between them all, why then should we dismiss the findings of the religious historians based upon your assertions of confirmation bias? If the lack of confirmation bias gives more credibility to the secularists, yet the evidence and reasoning is the same as religionists, then what's the difference?

1. Secularist: 1 + 1 = 2.
2. Religionist: 1 + 1 = 2.

Should we dismiss the religionist because he believes in the big "Math God" in the sky?

[Minimalist]

Alright, I had to go back to your list to see where we go from here.

You said "They are all historians. "

So let's dispose of another myth.

Of the 15 names you gave:

1.  Vermes was previously dismissed as a former priest.

Down to 14.

2.  Charlesworth, Van Voorst, Powell and Evans work for various seminaries, as you noted.  You probably have no problem with that.  I do.  They know who fills their rice bowl.

Down to 10.

Casey.  Employed by University of Nottingham in the Department of Theology.

Down to 9.

Ehrman.  In one of his books, and I've read almost everything he's ever written, he mentioned that he fell for ( my words, not his) the Josephus fraud.  I found it disappointing that he was so gullible but he is no fan of your "gospels."

But I am going to give you Ehrman anyway because he is as close as you got.

N. T Wright.  You were just breaking my balls on this one, right?  (Pun intended.)  He was a fucking bishop!

Down to 8

Marcus Borg:  New Testament Scholar and Theologian.

Down to 7.

Larry Hurtado:  Former Theology professor and Graduate of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Central Bible College.  Also, I had missed the fact that Hurtado had passed away in 2019 so thanks for making me look him up.

Down to 6.

J. Paget: Who?  Any number of people came up on the search, including a British doctor for whom Paget's Disease is named.  I did find one old codger on the Cambridge Faculty of Divinity but I can't tell if that is who you meant or not.

Provisionally down to 5 unless you can more adequately identify him.

Edwin Judge:  Only found a reference to him on a website called "Gospel Conversations," which told me all I needed to know.

Down to 4.

A. E. Harvey:  Former lecturer on Theology at Oxford.

Down to 3.

E. P. Sanders:  PH. D 1966 in Theology from Union Theological Seminary.

Down to 2.

Which leaves only Michael Grant who was not even a Theologian.  He was a writer and translator and his degree was a Doctor of Literature.  He was a specialist in Roman coinage, of all things but he did attend Trinity College so there's that. 

I'm going to call him a draw.  Which leaves you with one win, 13 losses, and a tie.

Now, the reason for bolding "Theologian."

I read this quote some years ago:

"What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that 'theology' is a subject at all?"

-- Richard Dawkins

I agree with Dawkins completely.  As far as I am concerned, theologians are as useful as tits on a bull.

[eider]

Historical Jesus...... 11

Jesus and the Law

Jesus made it very clear that he believed in the Law. I'll place some examples below.
Some people argue that Jesus was a law breaker because he chewed some food during a short journey on a Saturday, or maybe because he wrecked Anna's bazaar during that last week. Jesus wrecked the bazaar because it was a rip off and breaking the laws.

If the old laws could be restored then the wealthy (mostly the Priesthood) would have to change it's ways... a high % of the peasantry were living on the poverty line and the laws of Moses provided for all, the able and the disabled, both.

The Law, as written in Genesis, Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy is an amazing piece of legislation designed to produce a fast growing, more healthy, secure, safe, cohesive 'people', and these laws worked when they were obeyed. And clearly Jesus wanted them in place because much of the corruption and unreasonable wealth held by the 'rich class' would dissipate out amongst the people.
The Baptist sought to keep the people from the Temple 'rip off' and afterwards, so did Jesus.
Some lovely examples of brilliant legislation, thus:-

Deuteronomy {25:4} Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out [the corn. (could be writ large above any animal-care charity entrance)
Deuteronomy {15:11} For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land. (speaks for itself!)
Leviticus {25:4} But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. (rotation of farm land)
{22:8} When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. (this is a law here.)

[Rhythmcs]

The muzzled oxen bit is amusing, paul uses it to explain that shamans should be supported by their marks. The laws of moses did not, in fact, provide for all (able or disabled), and the seventh year bit is not a crop rotation plan (it's numerology). Other than that, can't see any issues....

[Bucky Ball]

http://www.holeybooks.com/2012/02/the-to...leviticus/
https://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/06/13...lties.html

LMAO

The Law, as written in Genesis, Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy is an amazing piece of legislation designed to produce a fast growing, more healthy, secure, safe, cohesive 'people', and these laws worked when they were obeyed. And clearly Jesus wanted them in place because much of the corruption and unreasonable wealth held by the 'rich class' would dissipate out amongst the people.
The Baptist sought to keep the people from the Temple 'rip off' and afterwards, so did Jesus.

The temple "rip-off" came directly from "the law". It was a traditional part of the culture. It's how the Levites (priestly class) supported itself, as they had no "land-grant" in the territory division.
The above is nothing but made-up bullshit, supported by nothing. The "law" in Israel was nothing special, and it certainly was not "legislation". LOL This dude is so fucking ignorant he thinks the "law" was created by *legislation". There is no reference anywhere that "the Baptist sought to keep the people from the temple rip off". The people, in masses and droves" willingly participated in the temple sacrificial system.

In the gospels, Jesus was said to comply with and not object to the temple customs, in place. After Jesus is born and the time of Mary’s menstrual impurity had run its course, Luke says that Mary and Joseph took the baby Jesus to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord at the temple. This was in keeping with Mosaic law (Leviticus 12.6-8). We’re told they offered a sacrifice in accordance with the law, a pair of two young pigeons (Lev 5.11).

When Jesus healed the leper (Mark 1:40-45), he instructed him to go to the priest and offer for his cleansing what Moses commanded (Leviticus 14:1-32). The declaration that a leper was cleansed involved sacrifices in the temple. Would Jesus have directed the man to go to the temple and sacrifice if he was teaching his disciples to neglect the temple worship completely? Nope. Clearly Jesus accepted the law, and instructed others to accept the customs.

In the matter of the temple tax (Matthew 17:24-27), the tax collectors seek out Jesus and his disciples in Capernaum. They appear to frame the question as if they expected Jesus to somehow object. Perhaps Jesus’ teachings and actions had aroused their suspicions. But Peter lets them know in no uncertain terms that did pay the temple tax. The tax is described in Exodus 30:11-16 as a half a shekel “a contribution to the LORD.”+
Jesus instructs Peter to go fishing. And when he does he catches a fish that had swallowed a coin worth enough to pay the annual temple tax for both of them. The temple tax was used for the upkeep of the temple which included the sacrifices, and clearly it was important enough to demonstrate in the gospel that Jesus accepted it, and paid it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/anim...8c11073738
The entire city of Jerusalem was dependent on the sacrifice business. The city had no other economic base.
In fact the gospels say "render unto Caesar etc".
Rendering unto God means PAYING the taxes required, and this eider guy has NO EVIDENCE that anything was required other than
what was traditionally laid down in the law. He has never posted any evidence. Assertions are not evidence.
And eider is nothing but a bullshit slinger.
There is not ONE shred of evidence anywhere (and eider has NONE), that any of the percentages or customs required in the temple (nor is there any evidence in the Talmud)
had changed, were considered excessive, or were in any way rejected by the Jews of the time.
Eider's narative is nothing but an ignorant, unsupported fiction.

The incident (s) concerning the "money-changers" were not objections to the "sacrificial system".
Jerusalem was occupied by the Romans, and Roman currency was commonly used. It was considered "impure" for temple use. The Jews of the day WANTED to comply with the temple regulations, and they valued the traditional sacrificial customs. They therefore change Roman currency into local currency.
The exchange rate was what was being objected to, with it's fee. The priests were not money-changers.

[Free]

Alright, I had to go back to your list to see where we go from here.

You said "They are all historians. "

So let's dispose of another myth.

Of the 15 names you gave:

1.  Vermes was previously dismissed as a former priest.

Down to 14.

2.  Charlesworth, Van Voorst, Powell and Evans work for various seminaries, as you noted.  You probably have no problem with that.  I do.  They know who fills their rice bowl.

Down to 10.

Casey.  Employed by University of Nottingham in the Department of Theology.

Down to 9.

Ehrman.  In one of his books, and I've read almost everything he's ever written, he mentioned that he fell for ( my words, not his) the Josephus fraud.  I found it disappointing that he was so gullible but he is no fan of your "gospels."

But I am going to give you Ehrman anyway because he is as close as you got.

N. T Wright.  You were just breaking my balls on this one, right?  (Pun intended.)  He was a fucking bishop!

Down to 8

Marcus Borg:  New Testament Scholar and Theologian.

Down to 7.

Larry Hurtado:  Former Theology professor and Graduate of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Central Bible College.  Also, I had missed the fact that Hurtado had passed away in 2019 so thanks for making me look him up.

Down to 6.

J. Paget: Who?  Any number of people came up on the search, including a British doctor for whom Paget's Disease is named.  I did find one old codger on the Cambridge Faculty of Divinity but I can't tell if that is who you meant or not.

Provisionally down to 5 unless you can more adequately identify him.

Edwin Judge:  Only found a reference to him on a website called "Gospel Conversations," which told me all I needed to know.

Down to 4.

A. E. Harvey:  Former lecturer on Theology at Oxford.

Down to 3.

E. P. Sanders:  PH. D 1966 in Theology from Union Theological Seminary.

Down to 2.

Which leaves only Michael Grant who was not even a Theologian.  He was a writer and translator and his degree was a Doctor of Literature.  He was a specialist in Roman coinage, of all things but he did attend Trinity College so there's that. 

I'm going to call him a draw.  Which leaves you with one win, 13 losses, and a tie.

Now, the reason for bolding "Theologian."

I read this quote some years ago:

"What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that 'theology' is a subject at all?"

-- Richard Dawkins

I agree with Dawkins completely.  As far as I am concerned, theologians are as useful as tits on a bull.

Except ... Dawkins is merely speaking about theologians, not historians. He's speaking about those who propagate religion, not those who study history. And for the record, Dawkins believed that Jesus existed as an ordinary man. So I'm not sure why you would select him as your go-to guy.







One can separate their personal beliefs from factual information (just like Richard Dawkins did) and still use the factual information to arrive at a perfectly reasonable and majority supported conclusion. There is a reason why these religionists arrive at the same conclusion as secularists. They reviewed the factual evidence and reasoned it to be sufficient to warrant historicity that a man named Jesus, called Christ, was crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate circa CE 33.

And the evidence and reasoning for the crucifixion is 100% agreed upon by hundreds of historians world-wide, while only a handful disagree and that handful can be demonstrated as employing a great degree of bias of their own.

And let's add some other context here. We'll just look at your assertions about Vermes and show his "real" qualifications:

Geza Vermes: Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies and Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford, but continued to teach at the Oriental Institute in Oxford.

Your bias is showing, Min. You intentionally chose to ignore the true qualifications of Vermes, and we can conclude you did it with them all.