Historical Jesus

[reyb]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1587031' date='Jun 30 2008, 11:03 AM']That's a good question. I suppose we must first agree on what "the form of the Lord" entails. Obviously in the grand scheme of salvation history, Moses was speaking to a pre-Incarnation God so form could not truly mean 'physicality' in the proper sense of a physical 'face.' This passage clearly expresses that Moses had a truer vision and more intimate relatioinship of God than anyone else in his time, but to what extent 'form' implies and understanding of the Trinity or not is mere speculation. In fact, it is entirely possible that Moses was speaking to the pre-Incarnate Word that is Jesus Christ as an individual person of the Trinity rather than God the Father. Because the Old Testament lacks explicit references to the Trinity (as in God chooses to reveal different things about himself over the course of human history) really even MORE opens the door to allowing the possibility that the pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ acted as the person interacting with Old Testament historical figures. This is all speculation of course and I am not trying to speak as any Church authority.

My point is that Moses may have seen the form of the Lord in the presence of the Eternal Jesus. You also have to understand that the Incarnate Jesus wasn't necessary utterly limited by time/space in the sense that the rest of us are. (Again I am speculating). It is possible for instance, that during the Transfiguration...when Christ 'spoke with Moses and Elijah' his experience transcended time in the sense that the was ACTUALLY speaking to Moses & Elijah in [i]their [/i]own times. If this supposition could possibly be true, then your entire conundrum would be solved in light of a historical Jesus.[/quote]

[indent]Okay so the 'form of the Lord' is Jesus Christ Himself.

Now, in Isa 63:11-14

[indent][color="#FF0000"]11 Then his people recalled the days of old,
the days of Moses and his people —
where is he who brought them through the sea,
with the shepherd of his flock?
Where is he who set
his Holy Spirit among them,
12 who sent his glorious arm of power
to be at Moses' right hand,
who divided the waters before them,
to gain for himself everlasting renown,
13 who led them through the depths?
Like a horse in open country,
they did not stumble;
14 like cattle that go down to the plain,
they were given rest by the Spirit of the LORD[/color].[/indent]NIV
-----------------------------
Obviously in the above verses, Moses has the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

To refresh our memory.

First, Moses see the 'form of the Lord' or the 'image of God' which is Jesus Christ (see 2 Cor 4:4-5).
Second, Moses has the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And from the very beginning God is called 'Father' for it means lifegiver. Now,

Why then Moses never teaches about the doctrine of the Holy Trinity if he is truly looking at the pre-incarnate word which is the historical Jesus? [/indent]

[Veridicus]

[quote name='reyb' post='1587356' date='Jun 30 2008, 05:09 PM'][indent]Okay so the 'form of the Lord' is Jesus Christ Himself.

Now, in Isa 63:11-14

[indent][color="#FF0000"]11 Then his people recalled the days of old,
the days of Moses and his people —
where is he who brought them through the sea,
with the shepherd of his flock?
Where is he who set
his Holy Spirit among them,
12 who sent his glorious arm of power
to be at Moses' right hand,
who divided the waters before them,
to gain for himself everlasting renown,
13 who led them through the depths?
Like a horse in open country,
they did not stumble;
14 like cattle that go down to the plain,
they were given rest by the Spirit of the LORD[/color].[/indent]NIV
-----------------------------
Obviously in the above verses, Moses has the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

To refresh our memory.

First, Moses see the 'form of the Lord' or the 'image of God' which is Jesus Christ (see 2 Cor 4:4-5).
Second, Moses has the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And from the very beginning God is called 'Father' for it means lifegiver. Now,

Why then Moses never teaches about the doctrine of the Holy Trinity if he is truly looking at the pre-incarnate word which is the historical Jesus? [/indent][/quote]

Your query really has to be taken up with God Himself. I am not competent or educated enough to try and assume the ration of Moses or God in the Old Testament. I am free to speculate, but truly this is question that lies outside my authority to speculate. My guess would probably be that Moses was incapable of truly distinguishing hypostasis from ousia in his experience with the Godhead and therefore he was unaware of the definitive nature of the Trinity even though the books attributed to him reveal implicit Trinitarian wording...but that is just a guess. It seems to me more like the question "why does the OT speak of the sun rotating around the Earth if God as the Creator knew that the earth revolved around the Sun when he created the universe." OT writers wrote in their own time with their own philosophical and theological backdrops...and we learn a bit about God through these perspectives, but not the WHOLE truth of God through any one perspective. As I've said in previous posts, God chooses to reveal various eternal truths about Himself at various points in salvation history and its only looking at the grander perspective that one can see the whole truth. It is easy to get muddled in the details if you dig in too deeply on one line of scripture and fail to see its place in the greater tapestry.

That's probably not a satisfactory answer.

Peace,

Todd W.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Veridicus

[reyb]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1587467' date='Jun 30 2008, 09:13 PM']Your query really has to be taken up with God Himself. I am not competent or educated enough to try and assume the ration of Moses or God in the Old Testament. I am free to speculate, but truly this is question that lies outside my authority to speculate. My guess would probably be that Moses was incapable of truly distinguishing hypostasis from ousia in his experience with the Godhead and therefore he was unaware of the definitive nature of the Trinity even though the books attributed to him reveal implicit Trinitarian wording...but that is just a guess. It seems to me more like the question "why does the OT speak of the sun rotating around the Earth if God as the Creator knew that the earth revolved around the Sun when he created the universe." OT writers wrote in their own time with their own philosophical and theological backdrops...and we learn a bit about God through these perspectives, but not the WHOLE truth of God through any one perspective. As I've said in previous posts, God chooses to reveal various eternal truths about Himself at various points in salvation history and its only looking at the grander perspective that one can see the whole truth. It is easy to get muddled in the details if you dig in too deeply on one line of scripture and fail to see its place in the greater tapestry.

That's probably not a satisfactory answer.

Peace,

Todd W.[/quote]
[indent]How about Apostle Paul? Why he never teaches the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? I just want to remind you again, this doctrine was based on a belief, idea, interpretation, conclusion, assumption or rendition to the scripture that Jesus Christ is the historical Jesus but they are not speaking of this historical Jesus because they are all witnesses of One True Jesus Christ.[/indent]

Edited July 1, 2008 by reyb

[mortify]

Just some of my observations about the "Jesus of history" vs "Jesus of faith."

Ultimately a lot of this falls under the realm of disbelief in the supernatural. Many of these scholars already reject the possibility of miracles and so naturally the conclusion is many legends were invented about Jesus. The problem is to turn a simple rabbi into the Son of God takes time, and so these scholars will always take the latest dating of the gospels or offer the most liberal of speculations concerning their authorship, anything to promote some kind of historical uncertainty about Christ to allow as [i]evolution[/i] to take place. When textual criticism of the bible first began in the 1860's it was common to speculate that the bible itself was the result of centuries of compositions and adulterations of writings that were finally formulated some three hundred years after Christ. It wasn't until the discovery of many early manuscripts, early papyri fragments, and the earliest Christian writings outside of the New Testament (Letters of St Ignatius, St Clement;s first epistle, etc) that scholars began to accept that all the writings of the NT fell within the first century. Nowadays most gospels are dated to around 70 AD, and the reason is because many of them contain a prophecy concerning the destruction of the Temple, which Jesus' couldn't have said and so the authors must have added it after it's destruction. The point however is that if Jesus resurrected around 33 AD that doesn't give us a lot of time to permit an evolution into a God-man by the time the gospels were written. Someone once said it would probably take at least three generations to pass before any such transformation could take place, and since in the year of 70 AD Apostles, their disciples, and many eye witnesses to Jesus were still alive, this is unlikely. It's hard to imagine this body of witnesses would stand to see the real Christ so radically transfigured.

The obvious answer is that the Historical Jesus *is* the Jesus of Faith.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='mortify' post='1588460' date='Jul 1 2008, 03:12 PM']Just some of my observations about the "Jesus of history" vs "Jesus of faith."

Ultimately a lot of this falls under the realm of disbelief in the supernatural. Many of these scholars already reject the possibility of miracles and so naturally the conclusion is many legends were invented about Jesus. The problem is to turn a simple rabbi into the Son of God takes time, and so these scholars will always take the latest dating of the gospels or offer the most liberal of speculations concerning their authorship, anything to promote some kind of historical uncertainty about Christ to allow as [i]evolution[/i] to take place. When textual criticism of the bible first began in the 1860's it was common to speculate that the bible itself was the result of centuries of compositions and adulterations of writings that were finally formulated some three hundred years after Christ. It wasn't until the discovery of many early manuscripts, early papyri fragments, and the earliest Christian writings outside of the New Testament (Letters of St Ignatius, St Clement;s first epistle, etc) that scholars began to accept that all the writings of the NT fell within the first century. Nowadays most gospels are dated to around 70 AD, and the reason is because many of them contain a prophecy concerning the destruction of the Temple, which Jesus' couldn't have said and so the authors must have added it after it's destruction. The point however is that if Jesus resurrected around 33 AD that doesn't give us a lot of time to permit an evolution into a God-man by the time the gospels were written. Someone once said it would probably take at least three generations to pass before any such transformation could take place, and since in the year of 70 AD Apostles, their disciples, and many eye witnesses to Jesus were still alive, this is unlikely. It's hard to imagine this body of witnesses would stand to see the real Christ so radically transfigured.

The obvious answer is that the Historical Jesus *is* the Jesus of Faith.[/quote]


Very Well stated. You are rigth about the historical accuracy being consistent to across 3 generations. I've read about it before somewhere...there is a name for it..."Something" Rule...3rd person rule or something...

Anyway, from a historical perspective if you were to say interview someone for some event that happened in the past...your interviewees could not be greater than one person removed from an eye-witness. So for example...let's take the Apostle John who most likely lived well into the 70s, 80s, or 90s AD by modern estimates. John was an eye witness of Jesus Christ himself. Now John (and his first generation of individuals who knew Jesus personally) is entitled to the greatest degree of historical accuracy in terms of trusting his word over anyone else in that generation that DIDN'T know Jesus personally. So the disciples of John the Apostle would have been educated by the utmost authority (or one of the utmost authorities on who Jesus really was because he knew Jesus in life). The disciples can be said to have received authentic historical information about Jesus. So I am a historian who comes along...I want to speak at the very LEAST to John's disciples if I cannot talk to John himself. John himself would be able to provide the best information. John's disciples lie within realm of verifiable historical truth because their information came from an eye witness. John's disciples' disciples may be able to teach with authority...but they can no longer speak with [i]historical [/i]authority about the life of Jesus.

As mortify said, every book of the new Testament was written while either one of Christ's Apostles or immediate disciples were around to give historically accurate information...OR one of that first generation of disciples who learned truth from Christ's Apostles/disciples. The books were written within this timeframe and as mortify said and so I trust that their is no distinction between the "Historical Jesus" and the "One True Jesus Christ" which you seem bent on trying to artifically dichotomize from one another.

[reyb]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1588622' date='Jul 1 2008, 08:51 PM']Very Well stated. You are rigth about the historical accuracy being consistent to across 3 generations. I've read about it before somewhere...there is a name for it..."Something" Rule...3rd person rule or something...

Anyway, from a historical perspective if you were to say interview someone for some event that happened in the past...your interviewees could not be greater than one person removed from an eye-witness. So for example...[color="#0000FF"]let's take the Apostle John who most likely lived well into the 70s, 80s, or 90s AD by modern estimates. John was an eye witness of Jesus Christ himself. Now John (and his first generation of individuals who knew Jesus personally) is entitled to the greatest degree of historical accuracy in terms of trusting his word over anyone else in that generation that DIDN'T know Jesus personally. So the disciples of John the Apostle would have been educated by the utmost authority (or one of the utmost authorities on who Jesus really was because he knew Jesus in life)[/color]. The disciples can be said to have received authentic historical information about Jesus. So I am a historian who comes along...I want to speak at the very LEAST to John's disciples if I cannot talk to John himself. John himself would be able to provide the best information. John's disciples lie within realm of verifiable historical truth because their information came from an eye witness. John's disciples' disciples may be able to teach with authority...but they can no longer speak with [i]historical [/i]authority about the life of Jesus.

As mortify said, every book of the new Testament was written while either one of Christ's Apostles or immediate disciples were around to give historically accurate information...OR one of that first generation of disciples who learned truth from Christ's Apostles/disciples. The books were written within this timeframe and as mortify said and so I trust that their is no distinction between the "Historical Jesus" and the "One True Jesus Christ" which you seem bent on trying to artifically dichotomize from one another.[/quote]

[indent]Are you referring to the writer of the Gospel of John?[/indent]

[reyb]

[indent]Okay let us start from here. Let us assume that the writer of the Gospel of John is John the Evangelist, the disciple who was standing near Mary while Jesus is dying on the Cross. (John 19:26) although according to some studies, to wit…

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[indent]The Gospel of St. Matthew is one of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament and is a synoptic gospel…. The Christian community traditionally ascribes authorship to Matthew the Evangelist….. Secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus' ministry…possibly writing in Antioch, c 80-85 or c 80-90.
See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew[/url][/indent]

[indent]The Gospel of Mark is the second of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament and is a synoptic gospel. It is anonymously written[1] but traditionally ascribed to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), a disciple of Peter….Following Augustine of Hippo, see also Augustinian hypothesis, the Gospel of Mark was traditionally believed by Christian churches to be based on the Gospel of Matthew, an epitome, and accordingly, it is placed after that gospel in most Bibles. However, most contemporary scholars regard it as the earliest of the canonical gospels (c 70). According to the two-source hypothesis, it was one source for material in the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Luke.
See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark[/url][/indent]

[indent]The Gospel of John the fourth gospel in the canon of the New Testament, traditionally ascribed to John the Evangelist….Most scholars regard the work as anonymous,[9][10][11] and date it to 90–100.
See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John[/url][/indent]

[indent]The Gospel of Luke is a synoptic Gospel, and is the third and longest of the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament…. Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14) but scholars are divided on this issue.[6]….Most scholars accept the two-source hypothesis, that the text is based in part on the Gospel of Mark and a now lost document, and place the composition of Luke between 80 and 90. A few scholars postulate an earlier date. Marcion circa 144, appears to have used this gospel, but he called it the Gospel of the Lord.[7]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_Luke"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_Luke[/url][/indent]

[indent]Saint Paul the apostle, the "Apostle to the Gentiles"[2] (ca 5 - 67CE) was, together with Saint Peter and James the Just,….Fourteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, though in some cases the authorship is disputed. Paul had often employed an amanuensis, only occasionally writing himself.[7][8] As a sign of authenticity, the writers of these epistles[9] sometimes employ a passage presented as being in Paul's own handwriting. These epistles were circulated within the Christian community. They were prominent in the first New Testament canon ever proposed (by Marcion), and they were eventually included in the orthodox Christian canon of Scripture. They are believed to be the earliest-written books of the New Testament.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul[/url][/indent]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
….all of synoptic gospel writers are anonymous or not yet fully recognize and all of these gospels are known or believed to have been written in year c70 – 100 AD while Apostle Paul was accepted to exist in this world in year ca 5-67AD. Now, if the Gospel writers are truly referring to the historical Jesus and Peter which is mentioned by Apostle Paul in Gal 1:18 is the Apostle of Jesus, your first Pope as the Roman Catholic Church is claiming, Why Apostle Paul never said ‘Jesus Christ died according to his disciples, for example, according to Peter, John, Matthew or whoever’. Why he said in 1 Cor 15:3-8

[indent][color="#FF0000"]3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures , 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures , 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born[/color].

NIV [/indent]
He said ‘according to the Scriptures’. Is it possible that he referring to the synoptic Gospels? How about the year and dates of these synoptic gospels?

He even said in ‘Gal 1:11-12

[indent][color="#FF0000"]I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ[/color]. [/indent]

He said ‘I did not receive it from any man’. Therefore he never learn this gospel even from Peter or John or any disciples you are saying. He received it directly from God.

Now, if Jesus is really the historical Jesus and was believed ascended to heaven in ca 32-34 then Apostle Paul must have been mentioned something like ‘I saw him and I am one of the many who wanted to crucify him for I am a Pharisee’ because Apostle Paul or Saul existed in this world in year ca 5-67.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These discrepancies are some of the many contradicting evidences that a bible scholar will find hence, some of them lost their belief and trust to the scripture as ‘inspired’ word of God. But, they neglect the very important phrase and that is, the ‘other Jesus’ mentioned by Apostle Paul. They are lost not because the Scripture is not inspired. They are loser because they believe in historical Jesus.
[/indent]

Edited July 2, 2008 by reyb

[Veridicus]

I believe any further discussion would be fruitless between us. You are arguing for a distinction between the [i]modern [/i]historical view of Jesus Christ and the [i]actual [/i]historical person of Jesus Christ in his own time. I agree. So does Benedict XVI. To keep debating about the potential merit of any historical scholarship is also pointless I believe because you have a firm foundation in the positions you are purporting that I really have no desire or intention to seek to undermine. God Bless.

You may be interested in reading this book by Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger):

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Pope-Benedict-XVI/dp/0385523416"]http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Pope-...I/dp/0385523416[/url]

He criticizes modern scholarship pretty harshly in the opening pages of the book.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='reyb' post='1588943' date='Jul 2 2008, 05:46 AM'][indent]Okay let us start from here. Let us assume that the writer of the Gospel of John is John the Evangelist, the disciple who was standing near Mary while Jesus is dying on the Cross. (John 19:26) although according to some studies, to wit…

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[indent]The Gospel of St. Matthew is one of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament and is a synoptic gospel…. The Christian community traditionally ascribes authorship to Matthew the Evangelist….. Secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus' ministry…possibly writing in Antioch, c 80-85 or c 80-90.
See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew[/url][/indent]

[indent]The Gospel of Mark is the second of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament and is a synoptic gospel. It is anonymously written[1] but traditionally ascribed to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), a disciple of Peter….Following Augustine of Hippo, see also Augustinian hypothesis, the Gospel of Mark was traditionally believed by Christian churches to be based on the Gospel of Matthew, an epitome, and accordingly, it is placed after that gospel in most Bibles. However, most contemporary scholars regard it as the earliest of the canonical gospels (c 70). According to the two-source hypothesis, it was one source for material in the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Luke.
See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark[/url][/indent]

[indent]The Gospel of John the fourth gospel in the canon of the New Testament, traditionally ascribed to John the Evangelist….Most scholars regard the work as anonymous,[9][10][11] and date it to 90–100.
See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John[/url][/indent]

[indent]The Gospel of Luke is a synoptic Gospel, and is the third and longest of the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament…. Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14) but scholars are divided on this issue.[6]….Most scholars accept the two-source hypothesis, that the text is based in part on the Gospel of Mark and a now lost document, and place the composition of Luke between 80 and 90. A few scholars postulate an earlier date. Marcion circa 144, appears to have used this gospel, but he called it the Gospel of the Lord.[7]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_Luke"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_Luke[/url][/indent]

[indent]Saint Paul the apostle, the "Apostle to the Gentiles"[2] (ca 5 - 67CE) was, together with Saint Peter and James the Just,….Fourteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, though in some cases the authorship is disputed. Paul had often employed an amanuensis, only occasionally writing himself.[7][8] As a sign of authenticity, the writers of these epistles[9] sometimes employ a passage presented as being in Paul's own handwriting. These epistles were circulated within the Christian community. They were prominent in the first New Testament canon ever proposed (by Marcion), and they were eventually included in the orthodox Christian canon of Scripture. They are believed to be the earliest-written books of the New Testament.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_Paul[/url][/indent]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
….all of synoptic gospel writers are anonymous or not yet fully recognize and all of these gospels are known or believed to have been written in year c70 – 100 AD while Apostle Paul was accepted to exist in this world in year ca 5-67AD. Now, if the Gospel writers are truly referring to the historical Jesus and Peter which is mentioned by Apostle Paul in Gal 1:18 is the Apostle of Jesus, your first Pope as the Roman Catholic Church is claiming, Why Apostle Paul never said ‘Jesus Christ died according to his disciples, for example, according to Peter, John, Matthew or whoever’. Why he said in 1 Cor 15:3-8

[indent][color="#FF0000"]3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures , 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures , 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born[/color].

NIV [/indent]
He said ‘according to the Scriptures’. Is it possible that he referring to the synoptic Gospels? How about the year and dates of these synoptic gospels?

He even said in ‘Gal 1:11-12

[indent][color="#FF0000"]I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ[/color]. [/indent]

He said ‘I did not receive it from any man’. Therefore he never learn this gospel even from Peter or John or any disciples you are saying. He received it directly from God.

Now, if Jesus is really the historical Jesus and was believed ascended to heaven in ca 32-34 then Apostle Paul must have been mentioned something like ‘I saw him and I am one of the many who wanted to crucify him for I am a Pharisee’ because Apostle Paul or Saul existed in this world in year ca 5-67.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These discrepancies are some of the many contradicting evidences that a bible scholar will find hence, some of them lost their belief and trust to the scripture as ‘inspired’ word of God. But, they neglect the very important phrase and that is, the ‘other Jesus’ mentioned by Apostle Paul. They are lost not because the Scripture is not inspired. They are loser because they believe in historical Jesus.
[/indent][/quote]

First, you just don't make any sense reyb. It seems to me that it is quite difficult for you to formalize your arguments with any cohesion.

Second...Wikipedia? Tssk, tssk. Next time cite something with a little more....oomph.

and third...

[quote]….all of synoptic gospel writers are anonymous or not yet fully recognize and all of these gospels are known or believed to have been written in year c70 – 100 AD while Apostle Paul was accepted to exist in this world in year ca 5-67AD. Now, if the Gospel writers are truly referring to the historical Jesus and Peter which is mentioned by Apostle Paul in Gal 1:18 is the Apostle of Jesus, your first Pope as the Roman Catholic Church is claiming, Why Apostle Paul never said ‘Jesus Christ died according to his disciples, for example, according to Peter, John, Matthew or whoever’. Why he said in 1 Cor 15:3-8

[indent][color="#FF0000"]3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures , 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures , 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born[/color].

NIV [/indent]
He said ‘according to the Scriptures’. Is it possible that he referring to the synoptic Gospels? How about the year and dates of these synoptic gospels?[/quote]

It could be possible that it was referring to some of the synoptic accounts that were being passed “orally” as in Oral Tradition before they were actually written as in Written Tradition. It also might point to affirming some of the Hebrew Scriptures as in (Pss 2, 7; 16, 8-11).

It doesn’t matter what years the synoptic gospels were written, they existed as Oral Tradition before they were written.

[quote]He said ‘I did not receive it from any man’. Therefore he never learn this gospel even from Peter or John or any disciples you are saying. He received it directly from God.[/quote]

This is why it's hard to take you serious some times. What do you think he means by Gospel? Does he mean scriptures or the "good news?" Or "his good news?" The content of his "good news" he learned through a revelation of Jesus Christ, not excluding his using Christian confessions of Jesus. Above all, this affirms his calling as a Christian missionary. His "good news" is divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit and doesn't come from man hence their rightful place in the New Testament.

[quote]These discrepancies are some of the many contradicting evidences that a bible scholar will find hence, some of them lost their belief and trust to the scripture as ‘inspired’ word of God. But, they neglect the very important phrase and that is, the ‘other Jesus’ mentioned by Apostle Paul. They are lost not because the Scripture is not inspired. They are loser because they believe in historical Jesus.[/quote]

Weak....and painfully incoherent.

Paz

Kiris

[mortify]

[quote name='reyb' post='1588943' date='Jul 2 2008, 03:46 AM']….all of synoptic gospel writers are anonymous or not yet fully recognize and all of these gospels are known or believed to have been written in year c70 – 100 AD while Apostle Paul was accepted to exist in this world in year ca 5-67AD. Now, if the Gospel writers are truly referring to the historical Jesus and Peter which is mentioned by Apostle Paul in Gal 1:18 is the Apostle of Jesus, your first Pope as the Roman Catholic Church is claiming, Why Apostle Paul never said ‘Jesus Christ died according to his disciples, for example, according to Peter, John, Matthew or whoever’. Why he said in 1 Cor 15:3-8[/quote]

First of all we know who the authors of these gospels are, the same names have always been applied to the same gospels and we are well aware that certain Apostles and disciples wrote gospels. One of our earliest witnesses is St Papias, who himself took it upon himself to collect many teachings of the apostles, and he himself ascribed certain gospels to certain people. With regards to St John's Gospel, St Ireneus tells us St Polycarp who knew St John personally, said the same John that rested his head on Jesus' bosom is the same John that wrote the gospel. I think these men are reliable and know what they're talking about.

You should ask yourself what evidence scholars have to suggest the gospels weren't written by eye witnesses. Firstly they believe the gospel authors borrowed from each other and therefore they couldn't have been written by eye witnesses ("Why would one eye witness borrow from another?" They ask.) Supposing borrowing did occur, there are explanations that don't require rejecting an eye witness writer. For one thing the Apostle/Disciple could have recognized the other's writing as inspired, and so he would have used the foundation God laid, and then applied what the Holy Spirit was inspiring him personally.

There is at least one verse that many say shows St Paul quoted Luke's gospel:

[color="#0000FF"]For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and [b]"The worker deserves his wages."[/b] [/color]1 Timothy 5:18

[color="#0000FF"]Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, [b]for the worker deserves his wages.[/b] Do not move around from house to house.[/color] Luke 10:7
[quote]These discrepancies are some of the many contradicting evidences that a bible scholar will find hence, some of them lost their belief and trust to the scripture as ‘inspired’ word of God. But, they neglect the very important phrase and that is, the ‘other Jesus’ mentioned by Apostle Paul. They are lost not because the Scripture is not inspired. They are loser because they believe in historical Jesus.[/quote]

I think I know which scholar you have in mind, he has written many popular books on textual criticism, though I wouldn't take him as the sole scholar on scripture. You should consider other scholars who truly affirm the historicity of Christ. Although I haven't read it, N.T. Wright supposedly wrote an excellent book on the historicity of Christ's resurrection. Perhaps you ought to balance your views?

[mortify]

An excellent source on the authenticity of the new testament:

[size=4][u][b][url="http://www.tektonics.org"]www.tektonics.org[/url] [/b][/u][/size]


It's written by a protestant but still very cool

[Socrates]

After all these pages, I still can't figure out what the heck Reyb's trying to argue.

[reyb]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1589017' date='Jul 2 2008, 10:21 AM']I believe any further discussion would be fruitless between us. You are arguing for a distinction between the [i]modern [/i]historical view of Jesus Christ and the [i]actual [/i]historical person of Jesus Christ in his own time. I agree. So does Benedict XVI. To keep debating about the potential merit of any historical scholarship is also pointless I believe because you have a firm foundation in the positions you are purporting that I really have no desire or intention to seek to undermine. God Bless.

You may be interested in reading this book by Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger):

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Pope-Benedict-XVI/dp/0385523416"]http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Pope-...I/dp/0385523416[/url]

He criticizes modern scholarship pretty harshly in the opening pages of the book.[/quote]
[indent]May I know what you mean by – ‘You are arguing for a distinction between the modern historical view of Jesus Christ and the actual historical person of Jesus Christ in his own time.’?[/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1589716' date='Jul 2 2008, 11:01 PM']After all these pages, I still can't figure out what the heck Reyb's trying to argue.[/quote]

I am simply saying - Jesus Christ of the Apostles and Holy Prophets is not the historical Jesus. The Scripture is correct and true but it does not speak about this historical Jesus. This historical Jesus is just an interpretation or assumption or conclusion by a reader to the scripture but it does not follow that this Jesus is the true Jesus.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='reyb' post='1590667' date='Jul 3 2008, 11:19 PM']I am simply saying - Jesus Christ of the Apostles and Holy Prophets is not the historical Jesus. The Scripture is correct and true but it does not speak about this historical Jesus. This historical Jesus is just an interpretation or assumption or conclusion by a reader to the scripture but it does not follow that this Jesus is the true Jesus.[/quote]

Now you see this made sense.......false....but at least coherent

Peace