Replies

Most history in those days were narratives based on narratives. And we know what happens when we have a group of people and we give the first person a simple fact and let every person pass it on to the next person. By the time you come to the last person the story doesn't even resemble the original.

It may or may not, in some aspects or not. What day of the week, whether he wore red or blue, whether he shouted: Look out ! or Get back!...

Maybe they would agree on whether someone died, whether there was a miracle, whether, whether...

What they are all agreeing on - at the very least - is something unusual happened.

Some time ago, I looked for the agreed upon "facts", by all reputable, Christian and non, about Jesus. What I found was "A man called Jesus existed and was thought to be a miracle worker."

That's pretty much it if you want the baseline objective historical facts.

From the scriptural sources, the most reliable thing we have is the sermon on the mount, the beatitudes.

From here we have less reliable accounts of his teaching and his life.

But what is the point of our research?

If it is research is about God, as God is described in the basic, then I posit it is a search for truth. And if it is a search for truth then we have other sources to check. If we wish to know if what we say Jesus taught is true - of God - then we measure it against other sources.

Or as someone said: Don't look up -- the truth is all around you.

Perhaps it is in where and how we look. And maybe one way to judge for ourselves the validity of the gospel account of Jesus is to try looking as Jesus looked - according to them.

What they are all agreeing on - at the very least - is something unusual happened

All 11 eleven of them...some had to believe their story. Then they told others and they believed their story, and so on. But real eyewitnesses there were none. The truth is, other than those eleven (even if there were eleven), millions believed someone else's story and none, save for the eleven were there when this allegedly happened, and even they didn't see it.

Of the NT writers, only Matthew and John are alleged eyewitnesses (assuming they actually wrote anything). The rest are 2nd and 3rd tier believers. Paul basically has his own story and he is his only witness, so take it or leave it! The the remaining nine alleged eyewitnesses never wrote anything.

The initial success had to do with the mass hysteria with mystery religions that pervaded the Middle East about an imminent 'end of times.' Paul actually believed and taught that the end of times already started by belief, which he never witnessed of course, that Jesus resurrected from the dead.

By the time this hysteria began to ebb, at the end of the century, the Church introduced (conveniently) the first Epistle of Peter which re-set the Rapture Clock and called on patience.

Some time ago, I looked for the agreed upon "facts", by all reputable, Christian and non, about Jesus. What I found was "A man called Jesus existed and was thought to be a miracle worker."

That's at best. Actually, someone would be hard pressed to even demonstrate by any reliable source that historical Jesus actually existed.

From the scriptural sources, the most reliable thing we have is the sermon on the mount, the beatitudes.

Why is that "reliable?" I personally find it most beautiful but I can't place reliability on it.

Which sources? In order to search for God we would have to know what God is, in order to recognize God when we find him. If you don't know what is human how will you recognize a human? You could be staring him in the face and not know it. Essence before substance. Nature before form.

And maybe one way to judge for ourselves the validity of the gospel account of Jesus is to try looking as Jesus looked - according to them

I am not sure I follow you here.