What is your opinion about the "Historical Jesus"?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P

Polar

Guest
#41
#41
Eli1 said:
I understand what you’re saying and YES we don’t have a picture from that time but this is simply a personal preference and not The Truth.
Click to expand...
Preference.

Well I understand that. I am just about positive that Jesus, wile on earth, was dark with brown eyes. When I say dark, I am thinking probably olive skinned or a little lighter. Don't know...BUT scripture does state He was not pretty or even desired as good looking people always are.

Pretty sure we might interpret that as inner beauty though? We should understand He was not attracting people because He looked good and all these physical portrayal always seem to have something of the movie star qualifications about them ;)
 
P

Polar

Guest
#42
#42
11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS.

Revelation 19


No longer undesirable, but fearsome and beautiful in ways we cannot comprehend on this earth
 
R

RichMan

Guest
#44
#44
Snacks said:
Cunning and deceptive is what I think. Not about Jesus, but the OP. Trying to sell a book.
Click to expand...
He has been here before trying to sell his book.
Why would any one read someone's opinion when all we need to know, all that is known about Jesus can be found in Scripture?
 
I

Inquisitor

Well-known member
#45
Mar 17, 2022
2,866
846
113
#45
jd01 said:
Should we distinguish between the historical (real) and the Christ of Theology?

Shoudn't they be the same?

If so, then a complete analysis on the Historical Jesus, such as found in the new book Salt & Light; The Complete Jesus, should describe the Christ then?
Click to expand...
Salt and Light, is simply an appraisal of historical texts concerning Jesus.

There are very few sources to examine in those first and second centuries, in order to paint an historical Jesus. Anything written after the latter second century, will still be based on those earliest sources. Because that's all there is available, not much at all.

I cannot see how a portrait of Jesus in the light of minimal external sources, is even possible.

Islam might have an opinion on Jesus but who cares?

Islam did not exist for 500 years after Jesus departed. What would they know?
 
I

Inquisitor

Well-known member
#46
Mar 17, 2022
2,866
846
113
#46
RichMan said:
He has been here before trying to sell his book.
Why would any one read someone's opinion when all we need to know, all that is known about Jesus can be found in Scripture?
Click to expand...
The sources are regarded as historical sources. Yet there is not much in the way of external historical accounts of Jesus.

Josephus, Tacitus, is there anything else?

The only way to view Jesus is in the New Testament accounts but unfortunately they have a bias.

Game over.
 
I

Inquisitor

Well-known member
#47
Mar 17, 2022
2,866
846
113
#47
Eli1 said:
They‘ve done some models on this and have come up with a few images … which I personally don’t like but I do like this depiction below:

View attachment 243283
Click to expand...
How about a real time analysis of Putin.

Which sources will you use?

All the historical sources are embedded with a heavy bias.

Will the real Putin be visible in those sources?

Highly unlikely.

To even suggest the idea of some historical portrait of Jesus is ludicrous.
 
Eli1

Eli1

Well-known member
#48
Apr 5, 2022
4,628
1,966
113
46
#48
Inquisitor said:
How about a real time analysis of Putin.

Which sources will you use?

All the historical sources are embedded with a heavy bias.

Will the real Putin be visible in those sources?

Highly unlikely.

To even suggest the idea of some historical portrait of Jesus is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
So you’re part of the vague crowd? Nothing can be described accurately including pictures. Kinda like one of the Supreme Court justices who can’t define what a woman is? :D

There is no mystery what Putin looks like my friend.
 
I

Inquisitor

Well-known member
#49
Mar 17, 2022
2,866
846
113
#49
Eli1 said:
So you’re part of the vague crowd? Nothing can be described accurately including pictures. Kinda like one of the Supreme Court justices who can’t define what a woman is? :D

There is no mystery what Putin looks like my friend.
Click to expand...
Not what he looks like but who the person is.

Who cares what Jesus looks like. That is utterly irrelevant.

Who Jesus was, who He claimed to be, is what it is all about.

Step into reality.
 
I

Inquisitor

Well-known member
#51
Mar 17, 2022
2,866
846
113
#51
Dirtman said:
Why would anyone read that book?
Click to expand...
There is no information in that book apart from people's opinions. The only people that had any idea about Jesus were the apostles. But the apostles, the disciples, only knew Jesus for three years. Even their opinion would not be fully descriptive of Jesus and contain bias, unfortunately.

How the devil would someone writing about Jesus, two hundred years or more after He was crucified. Know anything about Jesus, other than what's written in the New Testament.

I am baffled as to how a book on the historical Jesus can even reach publication?

Utterly baffled.
 
P

presidente

Senior Member
#52
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
#52
If the theology is good, then the historical Jesus and the Jesus of theology are one and the same.

Did you write the book and you want to drum up some sales?
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#53
Jun 30, 2015
25,369
13,730
113
#53
jd01 said:
Hmmm .... you can have a conclusion not based on evidence, that is not based on history?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand the question, as it doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you can rephrase?
 
jd01

jd01

New member
#55
Mar 3, 2022
26
6
3
Nova Scotia
#55
Eli1 said:
Ooooh I see.
So you’re another technical guy when reading the Bible.
“If you read this line you will go to Hell, but if you read this line you are saved and you will go to Heaven”.

Well, I hope you will find what you’re looking for.
Click to expand...
Huh? I never said that. I simply read what is there.
 
Eli1

Eli1

Well-known member
#56
Apr 5, 2022
4,628
1,966
113
46
#56
jd01 said:
Huh? I never said that. I simply read what is there.
Click to expand...
Hey you’re back ! :D
Look, I know you’re trying to sell a book but honestly speaking, the Historical Jesus is a strengthening point for Christianity when debating with atheists because we first establish that Jesus was here and existed. So this strengthens Christianity .
 
jd01

jd01

New member
#57
Mar 3, 2022
26
6
3
Nova Scotia
#57
Pilgrimshope said:
Luke is based entirely on eye witness accounts , mark wrote peters account , John and Matthew were also eye witnesses
Click to expand...
I agree that John and Mark are based on eye-witness testimony. Luke & Matthew copy Mark so to that extent we can say they are based on eye-witness testimony, but they themselves were not eye-witnesses they had to rely on two copied texts and some other sources which we do not know. I don't know why you believe Luke has 'perfect understanding', simply because he claims it? If I claim perfect understanding would you believe me? Of course not.

I also agree the Two eye-witness gospels are key to understanding Jesus and God. That is why we need to study them and understand the context in which they were created - it will greatly extend our understanding of the message they contain.
 
jd01

jd01

New member
#58
Mar 3, 2022
26
6
3
Nova Scotia
#58
Eli1 said:
Hey you’re back ! :D
Look, I know you’re trying to sell a book but honestly speaking, the Historical Jesus is a strengthening point for Christianity when debating with atheists because we first establish that Jesus was here and existed. So this strengthens Christianity .
Click to expand...
Which I do in the book and a lot more!
 
jd01

jd01

New member
#60
Mar 3, 2022
26
6
3
Nova Scotia
#60
Magenta said:
Which two gospel writers do you agree with, and what about the
other two - and all the other writers of all the other Scriptures???
Click to expand...
It is more of a question of which are more useful towards understanding Jesus. Both John and Mark are to be preferred over Luke and Matthew. Why? Because Luke and Matthew, non-eye witnesses, simply recopied (and embellished) Mark and Q. They then added some extra details which seem rather dubious. They do a terrible editorial job in some cases, recopying Mark's mistakes etc

Between John and Mark, John is to be preferred as it is a direct piece of personal eye-witnessing, while Mark cobbled his together from the teaching and preaching that Peter was doing - that is why it is rather clunky in places and probably the reason why Luke & Matthew felt the need to create better versions.

For the rest of the NT,

I think Peter and John were the authors of their letters. Paul probably is the author behind most if not all of the Pauline letters. Problem is Peter, John & Paul's letters really give us no info on the actual Jesus and his teaching, rather they give us theological opinion. Revelation actually has nothing to do with Jesus either (although the author thought it ok to inject Jesus into it), it is a tract written by an unknown person as a warning of sorts about the turmoil going on in Rome in 69 CE.

So it is not necessarily about 'agreeing' but ranking the sources we have in terms of usability. Use the good sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.