Posts by hmike

57

What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed

by yaddayadda in

as part of my journey into scrutinising the evidence for and against the reliability of the gospels, i've just finished reading "a new perspective on jesus - what the quest for the historical jesus missed" by james d.g.

dunn (phd, university of cambridge).

(have so far also read n t wright's "who was jesus" - and now making my way through "the incredible shrinking son of man" by r m price - so far it's disappointing.

hmike

Since we are discussisng the development of traditions the opinion held by influential writers like Eusebius is significant. He doesn't even seem to suggest a controversy about the identities. IMO since his opinion did not prevail there must have been a powerful motivation to merge the characters. As the Arian controversy (reshuffling of names of brothers and apostles to disguise humaness) and political establishment of the Catholic Church (founded upon Peter) were in the air we might have already found the needed motivation.

Pete,

I found the reference of Eusebius you quoted earlier--about Cephas and Peter. All it seems to say is that one of the seventy disciples had the name Cephas, same as Peter. The only mention of Simon in the early history is of Simon Magnus, the sorcerer. Eusebius does mention Peter often.

So couldn't there have been a Cephas, a Cephas aka Simon aka Peter, and a Simon--three different men. I see no controversy there, nor do I see why they had to be merged into one figure.

It really doesn't matter which Cephas Paul refers to. If it was Peter, maybe Paul just had a preference for using that name for personal or cultural reasons. People of the time he was addressing would have known who he meant.

57

What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed

by yaddayadda in

as part of my journey into scrutinising the evidence for and against the reliability of the gospels, i've just finished reading "a new perspective on jesus - what the quest for the historical jesus missed" by james d.g.

dunn (phd, university of cambridge).

(have so far also read n t wright's "who was jesus" - and now making my way through "the incredible shrinking son of man" by r m price - so far it's disappointing.

hmike

OK, it looks like this is not about determining what events actually happened--it's about whose version became accepted by the majority as history, and why. Am I correct with that?

57

What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed

by yaddayadda in

as part of my journey into scrutinising the evidence for and against the reliability of the gospels, i've just finished reading "a new perspective on jesus - what the quest for the historical jesus missed" by james d.g.

dunn (phd, university of cambridge).

(have so far also read n t wright's "who was jesus" - and now making my way through "the incredible shrinking son of man" by r m price - so far it's disappointing.

hmike

Pete,

Thanks for the response. I will check the references I can get and maybe revive this thread if I have any more questions or comments.

For now, I see you quoted Eusebius. Why would the information attributed to Eusebius (notice I said attributed to) be considered more accurate than another, say from the book of Acts?

You mentioned the different accounts of the deaths of the disciples. Which accounts could be considered the most accurate? And why? Or can any of the accounts be considered credible? Wouldn't all positions based on historical accounts contained in ancient documents--both those for and against--under a cloud of suspicion?

57

What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed

by yaddayadda in

as part of my journey into scrutinising the evidence for and against the reliability of the gospels, i've just finished reading "a new perspective on jesus - what the quest for the historical jesus missed" by james d.g.

dunn (phd, university of cambridge).

(have so far also read n t wright's "who was jesus" - and now making my way through "the incredible shrinking son of man" by r m price - so far it's disappointing.

hmike

Midget-S,

Thanks for the reference. I'll try to find it.

Pete,

Agree with lovelylil. Could you especially supply references for these statements:

Peter appears to also be a literary composite of a couple characters, Cephus, and Simon.

I do feel the generally accepted Paulines have been seriously edited, both by Marcion and then the later Orthodoxy when they eventually annexed/succeeded the Marcionite movement and adopted Paul as a Church icon and the Marcionite Paulines with him.

57

What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed

by yaddayadda in

as part of my journey into scrutinising the evidence for and against the reliability of the gospels, i've just finished reading "a new perspective on jesus - what the quest for the historical jesus missed" by james d.g.

dunn (phd, university of cambridge).

(have so far also read n t wright's "who was jesus" - and now making my way through "the incredible shrinking son of man" by r m price - so far it's disappointing.

hmike

How are any ancient historical accounts judged reliable? So much of what we have is dependent on the writings of only one person, or sometimes are based on accounts written down hundreds of years after they happened. What are the rules by which one detail is discarded and another retained?

12

My first time ever going to a church service...

by troubled mind in

jw
friends

i took a walk this morning and ended up going to the service at the church down the street .

i have always been curious as to what it would be like .

funny i was really scared someone from the hall would see me go in .

hmike

An enjoyable thread to read. If you haven't done so and are able, maybe you could let the pastor know how it was for you, even if you do it anonymously.

92

A True Scholar In Our Midst, Leolaia

by Skoshi in

her posts for a very long time were overflowing with an obvious scholarship.

i have avidly read her posts and have tucked away as much as my much smaller brain could be forced to take in.

i'm sure others have openly expressed their admiration and appreciation for her, but i would like to do so here.

hmike

I don't see anything wrong with expressing appreciation or giving recognition. I just don't want to see a cult of mindless followers who regard the scholar or expert as some kind of guru whose word is the final authority and can do no wrong.

Aside from the intellect, training, education, and access to resources, scholars are human like anybody else. They have their own biases and filters. Also, there are some gaps in knowledge that no amount of scholarship can fill. Notice there are scholars on different sides of the same issues, even though they have access to the same information?

As long as we are able to discern between fact and opinion (often presented as taken-for-granted fact), we can benefit from good scholarship regardless of whether or not we agree with the scholar's point of view.

57

If absolute proof proved the bible Jesus true....would you be happy?

by gumby in

this question is obviously directed at the un-bible believer.. lets for the sake of conversation say that absolute historical documentation was found that the man jesus was everything the new testement says he is.

we can assume the o. t. has some myth mixed in, but jesus was for real.. would you be happy?

would you follow him?

hmike

The Hebrew Bible contains many examples of antagonistic debate with "God" (Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah or Jonah, although less vocal than Job, offer other interesting examples).

We see God accepts questioning--even venting of frustration--from his faithful--those who have faith greater than the problems caused by the issues they are dealing with. The wisdom and the will of God prevail, nevertheless.

57

If absolute proof proved the bible Jesus true....would you be happy?

by gumby in

this question is obviously directed at the un-bible believer.. lets for the sake of conversation say that absolute historical documentation was found that the man jesus was everything the new testement says he is.

we can assume the o. t. has some myth mixed in, but jesus was for real.. would you be happy?

would you follow him?

hmike

Agreed with LT. Terror is only one of the many possible reactions. Under those circumstances, I just think any kind of arrogance would melt away.

I expect that most critics here think they would ask Jesus, "Why didn't you make things clearer for us?" Jesus would point to the faithful and say, "It was clear enough for them. Why not you too?"

57

If absolute proof proved the bible Jesus true....would you be happy?

by gumby in

this question is obviously directed at the un-bible believer.. lets for the sake of conversation say that absolute historical documentation was found that the man jesus was everything the new testement says he is.

we can assume the o. t. has some myth mixed in, but jesus was for real.. would you be happy?

would you follow him?

hmike

It always amuses me when I hear or read someone saying they would put Jesus on the hot seat: “If I meet Jesus, I’m going to tell him this or that” or , to paraphrase Ricky Ricardo (Lucy’s husband), “Jesus, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do.” Riiiiight…If his beloved Apostle John fainted at the sight of the glorified Christ, how is anyone else going to handle it? Some people don’t grasp what they would be dealing with. Jesus wouldn’t appear as some raggedy guy living on the streets, nor would he appear as the gentle shepherd holding a little lamb under his arm; he’d be in full regal-judicial-military glory accompanied by multitudes of angels. No non-believer is going to “tell” him anything. Those who remain conscious are either going to be overcome with sorrow or stand there with their mouths gaping open from shock and awe. This is so far above meeting the President of the US, the Prime Minister, the Queen of England, or any other human that it isn’t imaginable.
And maybe Jesus would be gracious enough, with a wave of his hand, to show us a replay of history--not just the history of man, but even our own personal histories--with all the missing pieces filled in, all the ramifications of everything revealed, along with all the things that happened in the spiritual realm in conjunction with human history. All the paradoxes would finally be explained; all the seeming contradictions resolved. We would see how things became misinterpreted.
Finally, if you’re speculating on what would happen IF the NT were true, remember that Paul wrote that EVERY knee would bow and EVERY tongue would confess that Jesus is Lord. So, in the end, Jesus would get the honor due him from everyone, regardless of how they thought or felt in this life, just before some would be sent into eternal exile.