General Discussion

sinkingfeeling

(57,837 posts)

48. Really? First one listed is a bunch of essays about using the Gospels, language,

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 02:49 PM

Aug 2013

and Judaism in the search for a 'historical' Jesus. Or so claims the reviewer here: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/biography/v033/33.3.chilton.html

"Yet in the period after the Second World War, a self-described "New Quest of the Historical Jesus," championed by Günther Bornkam and Ernst Käsemann, emphasized the importance of crafting a portrayal of Jesus out of the Gospels, based not on a positivist historiography, but on the language Jesus used, and the language used about him, as precedent to the emergence of Christianity. This highly concentrated focus on the growth of the text of the New Testament was then challenged by Ben F. Meyer in 1979, whose Aims of Jesus insisted that Jesus could only be understood within the context of Judaism. That has resulted in what is frequently called a "Third Quest of the Historical Jesus."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

207 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Archaeologists believe they've found cross of Jesus of Nazareth [View all] BainsBane Aug 2013 OP

In my garage, I have Abraham Lincoln's axe . . . Journeyman Aug 2013 #1

Bah. I have the actual axe he killed vampires with. hunter Aug 2013 #39

LOL B Calm Aug 2013 #199

pieces of the "true cross" have been on sale by the millions for 2K years.. nt msongs Aug 2013 #2

Over the centuries, enough splinters of "the cross" have been sold Greybnk48 Aug 2013 #150

Exactly. Thousands were sold/venerated in the Middle Ages anneboleyn Aug 2013 #175

Yup sakabatou Aug 2013 #206

Did a historical Jesus exist? warrior1 Aug 2013 #3

+1 - the OP's article is a stretch to say the least n/t FreeState Aug 2013 #6

Yes, he existed BainsBane Aug 2013 #7

"Historians agree a man called Jesus of Nazareth lived and was crucified" FreeState Aug 2013 #13

The majority do BainsBane Aug 2013 #17

widespread scholarly agreement from biblical scholars- who study "bible history" Warren DeMontague Aug 2013 #125

You could google this warrior1 Aug 2013 #16

Here's the deal BainsBane Aug 2013 #20

they are also saying warrior1 Aug 2013 #25

a separate point BainsBane Aug 2013 #28

it's still made up bs warrior1 Aug 2013 #29

So you think all history is made up BS? BainsBane Aug 2013 #32

I think this story is warrior1 Aug 2013 #43

History- and Science- as conveyed by the Bible are inherently suspect. Warren DeMontague Aug 2013 #134

This is the problem with responses in this thread BainsBane Aug 2013 #136

A few things in reply to your well-thought out, cogent post. Warren DeMontague Aug 2013 #145

How do you know there is no evidence outside from the Bible? BainsBane Aug 2013 #158

If ALL the evidence is coming from Christianity, which incorporated this narrative into its Warren DeMontague Aug 2013 #183

GlassUnion cited Josephus BainsBane Aug 2013 #191

Josephus is invariably referenced because it's the ONLY one. And considered suspect. Warren DeMontague Aug 2013 #193

Thanks for the info BainsBane Aug 2013 #194

Those will be biblical scholars. :) idwiyo Aug 2013 #139

I don't think you understand the word "hearsay". Marr Aug 2013 #31

What do you think the gospels are? BainsBane Aug 2013 #35

I'm not wrong, and the gospels are hearsay. Marr Aug 2013 #47

70 years, not 40 years. RC Aug 2013 #52

Jesus supposedly died in 33AD though, I believe. /nt Marr Aug 2013 #57

RC apparently isn't a mathematician, either. Bake Aug 2013 #135

There is a difference between documenting miracles BainsBane Aug 2013 #159

The gospels contradict each other REP Aug 2013 #60

For a historian you certainly chose a poor reference. Wikipedia? dballance Aug 2013 #115

The bible is not a historical document. It contains some real history mixed up kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #182

No serious historian would say that a man named "Jesus" existed. Xithras Aug 2013 #100

Virtually all serious historical scholars of that era agree that a historical Jesus existed. pnwmom Aug 2013 #133

I was being snarky Xithras Aug 2013 #147

I see BainsBane Aug 2013 #168

Yes, they agree someone like that existed. NuclearDem Aug 2013 #113

Julius Caesar wrote 'De Bello Gallico' himself muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #165

Take a few minutes then get back to us boomer55 Aug 2013 #169

Wrong intaglio Aug 2013 #195

No one was from Nazareth? BainsBane Aug 2013 #196

Not at the time intaglio Aug 2013 #198

Interesting. BainsBane Aug 2013 #201

You sir/madam, much like Leopold "Butters" Stotch... whttevrr Aug 2013 #14

Heresy against the church, Butters? Well that does it! NuclearDem Aug 2013 #118

The same could be said of most historical figures of the ancient era. former9thward Aug 2013 #36

There are multiple independent accounts of the existence of Alexander Marr Aug 2013 #55

Please name a physical location where I can see an account of Alexander. former9thward Aug 2013 #97

The Astronomical Diary in the British Museum. Marr Aug 2013 #117

Thanks, that was interesting. former9thward Aug 2013 #148

You bet. Marr Aug 2013 #149

That doesn't mean it's the only one muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #167

This message was self-deleted by its author former9thward Aug 2013 #146

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold Bryn Aug 2013 #68

I think you mean .... socialist_n_TN Aug 2013 #114

I see a great debate in the future about the existence of John Lennon... hunter Aug 2013 #72

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Aug 2013 #123

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed" pnwmom Aug 2013 #132

unless I am mistaken warrprayer Aug 2013 #4

You are mistaken BainsBane Aug 2013 #8

This message was self-deleted by its author sinkingfeeling Aug 2013 #12

Show your work. FiveGoodMen Aug 2013 #46

.... WilliamPitt Aug 2013 #98

..... FiveGoodMen Aug 2013 #108

I was not trying to prove the divinity of the man. WilliamPitt Aug 2013 #109

You pointed to a book that claims he existed FiveGoodMen Aug 2013 #110

That article said the author of the book was inventing aspects of the man, WilliamPitt Aug 2013 #111

If he's inventing any part of it... FiveGoodMen Aug 2013 #112

It's been a while since I beat my wife. WilliamPitt Aug 2013 #124

That's an incredibly worthless response to my post FiveGoodMen Aug 2013 #126

This message was self-deleted by its author WilliamPitt Aug 2013 #122

Here BainsBane Aug 2013 #10

Wikipedia isn't the source . Gerd Theissen is the source. He's a sinkingfeeling Aug 2013 #19

Okay, you are clearly operated on a basis of faith BainsBane Aug 2013 #22

What historians 'agree'? What evidence do they agree upon to prove Jesus existed? sinkingfeeling Aug 2013 #34

Follow the links in the Wikipedia article BainsBane Aug 2013 #37

I have. There are no Roman records documenting anything about Jesus. sinkingfeeling Aug 2013 #41

You've read all those books in this short period of time? BainsBane Aug 2013 #162

What about his contemporaries? notadmblnd Aug 2013 #161

The apostles were his contemporaries BainsBane Aug 2013 #163

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the Gospels notadmblnd Aug 2013 #166

I've long ago exhausted my interest in this subject BainsBane Aug 2013 #170

I asked about his contempoaries writings. You said his Apostles were his contemporaries notadmblnd Aug 2013 #181

This appears to be a good start BainsBane Aug 2013 #40

Really? First one listed is a bunch of essays about using the Gospels, language, sinkingfeeling Aug 2013 #48

Are you actually citing positivism as something to aspire to? BainsBane Aug 2013 #56

No, just belief in evidence. You have provided zero evidence. sinkingfeeling Aug 2013 #74

It's not my job to provide evidence BainsBane Aug 2013 #180

I mean this in the kindest possible way tkmorris Aug 2013 #120

You aren't. There is however, a veritable mountain range of evidence created by and for Egalitarian Thug Aug 2013 #75

heh FirstLight Aug 2013 #5

Damn post a spoiler alert will ya? hootinholler Aug 2013 #9

I think it'll be about who is gonna carry Ilsa Aug 2013 #157

I think they mean "archaeologists" with the quotation marks, as in kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #11

There is historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed BainsBane Aug 2013 #15

please share your "historical" evidence, thanks nt msongs Aug 2013 #30

(crickets chirping) - There IS none. What they have has been found not reliable or accurate. kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #54

There is no legitimate, verifiable evidence that Jesus existed. There is one kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #53

The question of his existence and being divine are two separate matters BainsBane Aug 2013 #63

Thank you. truebrit71 Aug 2013 #64

I have seen no provable evidence that Jesus existed. However, I think that there was a charismatic, Arkansas Granny Aug 2013 #103

You should probably drop your Cesar arguement. jbond56 Aug 2013 #88

Wow, you sure proved that BainsBane Aug 2013 #90

hahahah jbond56 Aug 2013 #105

... SammyWinstonJack Aug 2013 #190

In the same way as putting "bloggers" in the same sentence with "journalists"? cherokeeprogressive Aug 2013 #172

Was it customary to save crosses or pieces of crosses after a crucifixion? KansDem Aug 2013 #18

Stolen, I'd guess. Morning Dew Aug 2013 #23

I recently read something about the men crucified with Jesus BainsBane Aug 2013 #27

The Shroud of Turin has his DNA, correct? RC Aug 2013 #89

Of course not BainsBane Aug 2013 #91

What is? The DNA or the fact the weave being invented well after he died? RC Aug 2013 #93

The DNA BainsBane Aug 2013 #94

Then how can anyone prove the wood came from Jesus's cross? RC Aug 2013 #104

Reza Aslan just stated recently, Romans reserved crucifixion for traitors and rebels Brother Buzz Aug 2013 #140

That's where I heard it BainsBane Aug 2013 #144

I heard historian Reza Aslan, PhD say that only Ilsa Aug 2013 #153

They're all fake and were identified as fake in the Middles Ages Nevernose Aug 2013 #42

reused, I would guess. nt Deep13 Aug 2013 #51

cross were reused and if there were nails they were reused madrchsod Aug 2013 #187

I have a shard of the True Cross! xfundy Aug 2013 #21

ohhhhh you going to get it. lol. okieinpain Aug 2013 #45

Regardless of whether the man existed... KatyMan Aug 2013 #24

This the same one Helena discovered c. 330? Retrograde Aug 2013 #26

Most of the "sacred" sites in Jerusalem were "divined" by Helena egold2604 Aug 2013 #207

Wow.. and I've seen the rock that Mary rested on during her trip to Bethelem! JustFiveMoreMinutes Aug 2013 #33

who comes up with this nonsense? bowens43 Aug 2013 #38

The same ditwits who go off climbing Mt Ararat to "prove" Noah's Ark is up there. Archae Aug 2013 #50

what! it`s not up there! madrchsod Aug 2013 #188

They've been selling this bills hit for 1900 years now Nevernose Aug 2013 #58

all I have to say to you folks talking about no jesus, is you better go okieinpain Aug 2013 #44

One can stack a hundred cords of wood with fragments of the True Cross. nt Deep13 Aug 2013 #49

It's not surprising to hear that people who follow a religion would believe this bunk. Walk away Aug 2013 #59

I hope it is the real thing. It would be a blessing if it was the real cross. hrmjustin Aug 2013 #61

Why and to whom? truebrit71 Aug 2013 #66

It is a blessing to Christians like me and I would be happy if it were real. hrmjustin Aug 2013 #70

Still not sure why it would be a 'blessing'? truebrit71 Aug 2013 #76

If it were a part of the true cross we would have something of our faith to touch with human hands. hrmjustin Aug 2013 #79

Wouldn't that rather be like someone in the Kennedy fmaily snuggling up to a rifle though? truebrit71 Aug 2013 #80

No! Remember we believe Jesus was raised and by his death on the cross we believe we are redeemed. hrmjustin Aug 2013 #82

Right, but I was suggesting that he wouldn't want the reminder... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #83

Personally I don't think he would mind because I believe he is in heaven. But I can not speak for hrmjustin Aug 2013 #86

the concept of martyrdom is key to the faith...... without it, people wouldn't allow others bettyellen Aug 2013 #137

I wonder if, among all the eager Christian pilgrims in history, paying money Aristus Aug 2013 #62

the old saying goes 'there have been enough pieces of the 'True Cross' sold to build Noah's Ark and Bluenorthwest Aug 2013 #78

Well, if its for real the DNA testing on it should prove interesting. 1-Old-Man Aug 2013 #65

Seems to me the best they can do is carbon date it BainsBane Aug 2013 #67

Maybe they should try some DNA that "most" historians agree is his... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #81

Sorry to challenge your faith BainsBane Aug 2013 #85

Um, what faith? truebrit71 Aug 2013 #95

Your faith BainsBane Aug 2013 #99

Neither do they use Wikipedia of all things... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #102

Where did you say your PhD is from? eShirl Aug 2013 #185

Yes, they do use DNA muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #200

and where, Pray tell, can that be found? 1-Old-Man Aug 2013 #92

It can't be found, just like the "proof" that he existed at all...that's my point... truebrit71 Aug 2013 #96

This has to be one of the worst examples of journalism (and archaeology). Behind the Aegis Aug 2013 #69

Obviously there is no way something like that could be proven BainsBane Aug 2013 #197

Was it sitting next to the Shroud of Turin and the James Ossuary by chance? opiate69 Aug 2013 #71

The crucifixes of yester-year, are the guns of today Sheepshank Aug 2013 #73

That ain't nuthin' dusty trails Aug 2013 #77

"we have found a holy thing in a chest" boston bean Aug 2013 #84

Because it sounds like a line from Monty Python? muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #160

THEY're NEVER gonna give up thinking they have found some onecent Aug 2013 #87

Looked old and rugged -- then it must be the real thing Blue Owl Aug 2013 #101

Well, that would be pretty cool if it was real..... cbdo2007 Aug 2013 #106

So the "fossiles are the work of Satan" theory has been debunked? mick063 Aug 2013 #107

There is no proof he ever existed LittleBlue Aug 2013 #116

I wonder if there are some translation issues with what the archaeologist petronius Aug 2013 #119

You would be hard pressed to find non "Biblical" historians who agree that Jesus objectively existed Warren DeMontague Aug 2013 #121

Let me know when they find the sacred "Pipe" of "Bob" Warren DeMontague Aug 2013 #127

Or Jesus' hash pipe. It should have drool on it with DNA. tridim Aug 2013 #130

...or THE Holy Colander used to strain the Flying Spaghetti Monster! n/t backscatter712 Aug 2013 #179

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Aug 2013 #184

How on earth would one go about proving that? nyquil_man Aug 2013 #128

Didn't they "find" the ark a few times in the past 20 years? tridim Aug 2013 #129

As a believing Christian I hope that it is genuine. hrmjustin Aug 2013 #131

You should not have apologized. Glassunion Aug 2013 #138

Thanks for your reasoned response BainsBane Aug 2013 #142

It is what it is... Glassunion Aug 2013 #143

There's no evidence outside the gospels. And there were several similar mystery cults at the time. Warren DeMontague Aug 2013 #152

Have they carbon-dated it? GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #141

Fundamentalist creationists don't believe in carbon dating, so won't convince them. Oh, wait- AlinPA Aug 2013 #151

So you don't know the answer? GiaGiovanni Aug 2013 #155

Many Christians do believe in carbon dating. hrmjustin Aug 2013 #164

There's a fun TV show on Ilsa Aug 2013 #154

I see this post kicked up a few thoughts. hrmjustin Aug 2013 #156

A great site to understand the spiritual creation of the myth of Jesus boomer55 Aug 2013 #171

Maybe it was the cross of Brian of Nazareth edbermac Aug 2013 #173

'e's NOT the Messiah!!! cherokeeprogressive Aug 2013 #174

Aren't there like 20 places in Rome that claim to have the foreskin of Jesus? arcane1 Aug 2013 #176

Helen, mother of Constantine, claimed to have found the cross in the 4th Century Sanity Claws Aug 2013 #177

Call me skeptical... n/t backscatter712 Aug 2013 #178

slow news day? madrchsod Aug 2013 #186

They can't prove it BainsBane Aug 2013 #192

well here`s islam`s take on the death of christ mystery.... madrchsod Aug 2013 #189

First, we have to establish if there's any wood involved at all, or just stone muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #202

The Romans could hardly have nailed him to a stone BainsBane Aug 2013 #203

Yes, that's my point - the first report is just a stone with a cross on it muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #204

I figured they could tell from the shape or something BainsBane Aug 2013 #205