What is your opinion about the "Historical Jesus"?

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

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

Yeah, I wonder what the historical Jesus would have to say about it?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

There is no mystery what Putin looks like my friend.

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.

Why would anyone read that book?

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.

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?

I'm not sure I understand the question, as it doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you can rephrase?

To learn one man’s opinion. 😴

Huh? I never said that. I simply read what is there.

Hey you’re back !
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 .

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.

Which I do in the book and a lot more!

Sorry, all about Jesus.

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.