The Best Case for Jesus

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Fair’s fair. Let’s try to make the best possible case for the historical existence of Jesus.

Nice work, Mr. Kirby. That is the best case.

[Peter Kirby]

Fair’s fair. Let’s try to make the best possible case for the historical existence of Jesus.

Nice work, Mr. Kirby. That is the best case.

Thanks.

[maryhelena]

Fair’s fair. Let’s try to make the best possible case for the historical existence of Jesus.

Nice work, Mr. Kirby. That is the best case.

The best case for a historical Jesus is to assume the historicity of three other figures mentioned in the NT?

Simon, from Cyrene, and his sons Alexander and Rufus.

Peter Kirby: 'This suggests the existence of a very early tradition which, like an early tradition that Jesus had a brother named James, would lead most people to suspect that there was a historical Jesus.'

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Fair’s fair. Let’s try to make the best possible case for the historical existence of Jesus.

Nice work, Mr. Kirby. That is the best case.

The best case for a historical Jesus is to assume the historicity of three other figures mentioned in the NT?

Hi Maryhelena, I think you have misunderstood my comment. I was referring to Peter's second post in this thread. If you want to argue for a historical Jesus, Peter´s reasoning is in my opinion the best option. Does that convince me? No. But it's the best case.

The best case for a historical Jesus is to assume the historicity of three other figures mentioned in the NT?

Simon, from Cyrene, and his sons Alexander and Rufus.

As I said I was not referring to Simon of Cyrene. I have great faith that he is a literary invention by Mark (But I am not able to make a good interpretation).

[maryhelena]

Fair’s fair. Let’s try to make the best possible case for the historical existence of Jesus.

Nice work, Mr. Kirby. That is the best case.

The best case for a historical Jesus is to assume the historicity of three other figures mentioned in the NT?

Hi Maryhelena, I think you have misunderstood my comment. I was referring to Peter's second post in this thread. If you want to argue for a historical Jesus, Peter´s reasoning is in my opinion the best option. Does that convince me? No. But it's the best case.

Simon, from Cyrene, and his sons Alexander and Rufus.

As I said I was not referring to Simon of Cyrene. I have great faith that he is a literary invention by Mark (But I am not able to make a good interpretation).

I think Peter's second post is just the full text of the post on his blog...

Anyway, that aside, glad to hear your going with a literary invention by Mark for the figure of Simon of Cyrene.

[andrewbos]

...

[Bernard Muller]

to Sheshbazzar,

I took the liberty of highlighting the error in your reasoning. No such thing as "it was known then that Jesus lived" was 'known' by any of these writers.
It was believed by these writers,(see Luke 1:1) _none of which ever met Jesus_ that Jesus had lived during John's ministry.

I do not have to meet someone personally in order to know he/she exists or existed.
Knowing the existence of a person that way is not foolproof: errors & disinformation can happen. But saying someone cannot be known to exist by somebody else if they did not meet in person is not true.

Furthermore, the saying in question (Lk 7:28a: "I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John") is not a product of "Luke" imagination, but rather originated as Q material. http://historical-jesus.info/q.html
Lk 7:28a is not Christian in nature (because it elevates John above Jesus), therefore had to predate Christianity and the gospels.
Can you prove differently?

Actually, thinking about it, if "Mark" (as the author of the first gospel) had invented everything in his gospel (including the disciples), he would have clearly pretended one of these disciples wrote the story: and with no messianic secret!
That would have been a lot more convincing (& satisfy your very demanding criteria!).

But "Mark" did not do that. Why? I got answers.

Cordially, Bernard

[Sheshbazzar]

I do not have to meet someone personally in order to know he/she exists or existed.

Oh really? Tell me, you know for a fact that Zacchaeus existed? And just how do you know this 'fact'?
Oh that's right; 'He must have, ....This I know, 'cause the Bible tells me sooo.'

You may, good Jesus apologist that you are, believe that Zacchaeus existed, based on your belief of Luke's horse shit tale, created to explain the stripped appearance of the sycamore tree's bark, caused by Zacchaeus sliding down out of that tree so fast.
but you sure as hell do not know that this Zacchaeus of this gospel tall-tale ever existed.
No more than you know that Jesus existed and visited Zacchaeus's house.
Its a frigging STORY. with a protagonist, and a cast of characters, and contrived dialogue, not any actual history.

'Witnessing' for Jesus is as stupid as 'witnessing' for the existence of Zacchaeus, ....or for Balaam's talking ass.

I got answers.

All Jesus apologists got answers, no matter what lengths of imagination and stupidity they need resort to.

[Sheshbazzar]

Actually, thinking about it, if "Mark" (as the author of the first gospel) had invented everything in his gospel (including the disciples), he would have clearly pretended one of these disciples wrote the story: and with no messianic secret! That would have been a lot more convincing.

Well I'd say if you were actually thinking about it, you'd take time to put your mind in gear before hitting the keys with such an inane argument.
"The Gospel Which is According to Mark" wasn't around until whoever wrote it, wrote it. And any contemporary of this writer, that knew the life and history of this writer, would have known that this writer was not one of the apostles, and would have discredited the claim.
By the writer of 'Mark' remaining anonymous, and not claiming to be the apostle Mark, the writer shelters himself from exposure as being a fraud. He (whoever he was) is simply a good story teller and writer, nothing to object to, as he claims nothing at all in this work of religious fiction to be about himself.
The writer therefore, no matter how outlandish or contrived his STORY, maintains his total innocence, he has only composed a interesting STORY, his friends and neighbors all know him, and know that its all just a STORY. No problemo

Sheshbazzar.

[outhouse]

Lk 7:28a is not Christian in nature (because it elevates John above Jesus), therefore had to predate Christianity and the gospels.


Can you prove differently?



Cordially, Bernard

Yes I can. I think you place to much certainty on this text, and place it out of context. It is 100% in line with Christology of the time.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/7-28.htm

The contrast that is drawn is between being in and being out of the kingdom; and this man, great as he was among them ‘that are born of women,’ stood but upon the threshold; therefore, and only therefore, and in that respect, was he ‘less than the least’ who was safely within it.


The simple meaning of these words seems to be that in blessings and privileges, in knowledge, in revealed hope, in conscious admission into fellowship with God, the humblest child of the new kingdom is superior to the greatest prophet of the old; seeing that, as the old legal maxim says, “the least of the greatest is greater than the greatest of the least.” The smallest diamond is made of more precious substance than the largest flint. In the old dispensation “the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified,” John 7:39. Of those ‘born of women* there was no greater prophet than John the Baptist, but the members of Christ’s Church are “born of water and of the Spirit.” This saying of our Lord respecting the privileges of the humblest children of His kingdom has seemed so strange that attempts have been made to give another tone to the meaning by interpreting “he that is least” to mean “the younger,” and explain it to mean our Lord Himself as “coming after” the Baptist.