Historical Jesus

[Maidservant]

I am in a personal long term study project (when I have the time, *laughs maniacally*) that I call "finding Jesus".

I would like to discuss in this thread the simple yes, no, or maybe, likely, not likely of Jesus of Nazareth's existence.  I don't want to discuss his divinity or not; whether the miracles are real or not; or anything else theological about him; or any faith/spirit knowledge.  Just whether or not he was born and died at the approximate time attributed to him in the New Testament to the degree that can be born out by historical methods.

For me, I say it that I find it likely that he existed.  My two main pieces for this are: the note in Josephus; and the New Testament as historical documents (because otherwise they were made up whole cloth, which I am not dismissing, but I don't find that likely with the information I presently have).

I am curious about any one else's study, references, pieces, ideas, evidences, thought experiments, etc--that others find convincing or compelling--either way, any answer.  For example, I don't have the background knowledge to evaluate the NT text as being faithful to the time period or anachronistic, but perhaps someone here does . . . or etc etc etc etc etc etc. . . books recommended for me to read . . . . etc etc etc etc etc

?

Edited July 20, 2017 by Maidservant

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I am in a personal long term study project (when I have the time, *laughs maniacally*) that I call "finding Jesus".

I would like to discuss in this thread the simple yes, no, or maybe, likely, not likely of Jesus of Nazareth's existence.  I don't want to discuss his divinity or not; whether the miracles are real or not; or anything else theological about him; or any faith/spirit knowledge.  Just whether or not he was born and died at the approximate time attributed to him in the New Testament to the degree that can be born out by historical methods.

For me, I say it that I find it likely that he existed.  My two main pieces for this are: the note in Josephus; and the New Testament as historical documents (because otherwise they were made up whole cloth, which I am not dismissing, but I don't find that likely with the information I presently have).

I am curious about any one else's study, references, pieces, ideas, evidences, thought experiments, etc--that others find convincing or compelling--either way, any answer.  For example, I don't have the background knowledge to evaluate the NT text as being faithful to the time period or anachronistic, but perhaps someone here does . . . or etc etc etc etc etc etc. . . books recommended for me to read . . . . etc etc etc etc etc

?

The Dead Sea scrolls keep coming to my mind. I have to wonder though how much is true or factual in the Bible, because so many scriptorians may have been teaching an allegory instead. Teaching through making things up, possibly to scare people into obedience. But I do believe there was a person name Jesus, and I will hope that it is indeed my Saviour. I guess I still am holding onto that faith thing. And I'm pretty scared that if I don't, I will end up in darkness. So maybe stories in the Bible do work?

 

[Gervin]

33 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I am in a personal long term study project (when I have the time, *laughs maniacally*) that I call "finding Jesus".

I would like to discuss in this thread the simple yes, no, or maybe, likely, not likely of Jesus of Nazareth's existence.  I don't want to discuss his divinity or not; whether the miracles are real or not; or anything else theological about him; or any faith/spirit knowledge.  Just whether or not he was born and died at the approximate time attributed to him in the New Testament to the degree that can be born out by historical methods.

For me, I say it that I find it likely that he existed.  My two main pieces for this are: the note in Josephus; and the New Testament as historical documents (because otherwise they were made up whole cloth, which I am not dismissing, but I don't find that likely with the information I presently have).

I am curious about any one else's study, references, pieces, ideas, evidences, thought experiments, etc--that others find convincing or compelling--either way, any answer.  For example, I don't have the background knowledge to evaluate the NT text as being faithful to the time period or anachronistic, but perhaps someone here does . . . or etc etc etc etc etc etc. . . books recommended for me to read . . . . etc etc etc etc etc

?

I don't have the time to engage in a discussion, but you might find this an interesting resource: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

Minimally, it will introduce you to some scholars and writing that you might not find assembled elsewhere.  Happy hunting!

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I am in a personal long term study project (when I have the time, *laughs maniacally*) that I call "finding Jesus".

I would like to discuss in this thread the simple yes, no, or maybe, likely, not likely of Jesus of Nazareth's existence.  I don't want to discuss his divinity or not; whether the miracles are real or not; or anything else theological about him; or any faith/spirit knowledge.  Just whether or not he was born and died at the approximate time attributed to him in the New Testament to the degree that can be born out by historical methods.

For me, I say it that I find it likely that he existed.  My two main pieces for this are: the note in Josephus; and the New Testament as historical documents (because otherwise they were made up whole cloth, which I am not dismissing, but I don't find that likely with the information I presently have).

I am curious about any one else's study, references, pieces, ideas, evidences, thought experiments, etc--that others find convincing or compelling--either way, any answer.  For example, I don't have the background knowledge to evaluate the NT text as being faithful to the time period or anachronistic, but perhaps someone here does . . . or etc etc etc etc etc etc. . . books recommended for me to read . . . . etc etc etc etc etc

?

I've read a couple Bart Ehrman books, but I didn't read this one - 

https://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500573242&sr=8-1&keywords=bart+ehrman+historical+jesus

As a former believer, Ehrman typically takes a pretty skeptical view about religion, but he still argues for Jesus as a historical person.  Also, all the other Christian scholars that I admire, Marcus Borg, Peter Enns, John Shelby Spong, Mike McHargue, including LDS biblical scholars that seem to be very honest when it comes to the evidence when it does fall short for historicity, they all take the position that Jesus was an actual person that lived.  

[Robert F. Smith]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I've read a couple Bart Ehrman books, but I didn't read this one - 

https://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500573242&sr=8-1&keywords=bart+ehrman+historical+jesus

As a former believer, Ehrman typically takes a pretty skeptical view about religion, but he still argues for Jesus as a historical person.  Also, all the other Christian scholars that I admire, Marcus Borg, Peter Enns, John Shelby Spong, Mike McHargue, including LDS biblical scholars that seem to be very honest when it comes to the evidence when it does fall short for historicity, they all take the position that Jesus was an actual person that lived.  

Virtually all professional  historians accept the actual historical existence of Jesus the Jew, even if they reject any religious beliefs about him.  As Paul Johnson says in his History of Christianity, 21-22,

Quote

Our ignorance of the Baptist inevitably clouds our view of the uniqueness of Jesus. Indeed, the historical problem of the Baptist, baffling as it is, serves merely as an introduction to the much greater problem of Jesus. There can, at least, be absolutely no doubt about his historical existence.  Unfortunately, the Antiquities of Josephus (published about AD 93), so useful about other related topics, is virtually silent on the point. Josephus was a Hellenized Jew, a Romanophile, indeed a Roman general and historian whose work received imperial subsidies. The manuscript chain coming down to us inevitably passed through Christian control. Since Josephus was strongly opposed to Jewish irredentism, or any other sectarian movement which gave trouble to the authorities, he clearly adopted an anti-Christian posture. But this has been tampered with. Thus, he mentions the judicial murder of James by the high priest Ananias in AD 62, and calls James the brother 'of Jesus, the socalled Christ', in a way to suggest that he has already given an account of Jesus and his mission. But what has actually come down to us is a passage which describes Jesus as a wise man, a lover of truth, much beloved by his followers; it accepts his miracles and resurrection and hints strongly at his divinity.

The passage is plainly a non-too-ingenious Christian invention and what Josephus actually wrote has gone. Attempts to reconstruct it have not so far won general acceptance. The inference from Josephus is that Jesus was a Jewish sectarian with messianic claims and a substantial following which had survived his extinction: a nuisance to the empire, in fact. This view is reflected in other non-Christian references, which are few but clearly confirm Jesus's historicity. Tacitus, in his Annals, writing of the fire of Rome in 64, refers to 'the detestable superstition' of Christianity, to 'Christus, the founder of this sect', and to his crucifixion 'in the reign of Tiberius by the Procurator Pontius Pilate' - though it is not clear whether he got this last from Christian or official sources. Pliny the Younger, writing in 112, says the sect 'sang a hymn to Christ as a God', and refused to curse Christ; only renegades were willing to do so. The earliest reference, by Suetonius, which implies that Christians were known at Rome even in the reign of Claudius, AD 41-54, is unfortunately garbled: he writes of Jews being expelled from Rome because 'they were constantly rioting at the instigation of Chrestus'. Did he think 'Chrestus' was still alive at the time? Anyway, he, and every other source referring to earliest Christianity, treat Jesus Christ as an actual, historical person.   https://www.google.com/#q=paul+johnson+a+history+of+the+american+pdf .

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[clarkgoble]

It's fair to ask how Christianity could develop in the 1st century without some source for it. Ignoring modern and personal revelation for the moment, it seems reasonable from a purely secular perspective that something was behind it. However most of the documents we have are well after the fact - and with Paul's writings from people unacquainted with him. But Paul presents there being a Jerusalem center and they appear to have known Jesus. It doesn't exactly seem the sort of thing one could lie about well only a decade or two after Christ's death.

Now pointing to what he said that was accurate seems a fool's errand and I find a lot of the "historical Jesus" stuff to be pretty speculative.

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

I am in a personal long term study project (when I have the time, *laughs maniacally*) that I call "finding Jesus".

I would like to discuss in this thread the simple yes, no, or maybe, likely, not likely of Jesus of Nazareth's existence.  I don't want to discuss his divinity or not; whether the miracles are real or not; or anything else theological about him; or any faith/spirit knowledge.  Just whether or not he was born and died at the approximate time attributed to him in the New Testament to the degree that can be born out by historical methods.

For me, I say it that I find it likely that he existed.  My two main pieces for this are: the note in Josephus; and the New Testament as historical documents (because otherwise they were made up whole cloth, which I am not dismissing, but I don't find that likely with the information I presently have).

I am curious about any one else's study, references, pieces, ideas, evidences, thought experiments, etc--that others find convincing or compelling--either way, any answer.  For example, I don't have the background knowledge to evaluate the NT text as being faithful to the time period or anachronistic, but perhaps someone here does . . . or etc etc etc etc etc etc. . . books recommended for me to read . . . . etc etc etc etc etc

?

What Daniel and Isaiah said about Christ, and what was said of them..I think are quite relevant.

Specifically Daniel 9, and Isaiah 53, the counterpart to Daniel 9.

Dead Sea Scrolls makes it quite clear that both books existed long before the Nativity.

 

What then do you do with a timeline that points precisely to

1) the year of the launch of Galilean ministry, a timeline confirmed explicitly in the NT...

2) and the timing of no greater love? 

 

Prophecy is history. 

A worthwhile headScratcher/heartStirrer/greenhouse, in my opinion.

Plants the seed that God keeps his promises.

 

Thoughts?

Edited July 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's fair to ask how Christianity could develop in the 1st century without some source for it. Ignoring modern and personal revelation for the moment, it seems reasonable from a purely secular perspective that something was behind it. However most of the documents we have are well after the fact - and with Paul's writings from people unacquainted with him. But Paul presents there being a Jerusalem center and they appear to have known Jesus. It doesn't exactly seem the sort of thing one could lie about well only a decade or two after Christ's death.

Now pointing to what he said that was accurate seems a fool's errand and I find a lot of the "historical Jesus" stuff to be pretty speculative.

Of course, but you are certainly correct to imagine that the Christian movement had to have been based on something or someone.  Indeed, when one reads the Gospels, one encounters one of the most remarkable personalities in human history.  It is very difficult to imagine that this Galilean rabbi could have formed such a movement without being powerfully charismatic and convincing.  It isn't only that he was crucified (any Jew could get himself crucified), but that virtually all parties wanted him killed.  What motivated such pervasive anger?  Why was he considered so dangerous?  And how did his movement survive?  Shouldn't killing him have settled the matter?

Some Jewish scholars see Jesus as an authentic example of an old time Hebrew prophet and as a great rabbi:

Montefiore, Claude G., "What a Jew Thinks About Jesus," Hibbert Journal, 33/4 (July 1935), 511-520.

Montefiore, Claude G., Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London/N.Y.: Macmillan, 1930/ reprint N.Y.: Ktav, 1970).

David Flusser, "Hillel and Jesus: Two Ways of Self-Awareness," in J. H. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus: Comparisons of Two Major Religious Leaders (Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 1997), 93-94,

Quote

        On one occasion, a serious scholar [R. Riesner] was truly astonished when I said to him that Jesus' rabbinic training was superior to that of Paul.  Reading Jesus' sayings without a thorough knowledge of Jewish, and especially of rabbinic sources, leads to wrong impressions.  The wording is mostly very simple.  Underneath the simple words of Jesus, however, runs another complex current of thought which is connected to the highest level of academic training.  Thus, the unlearned crowd was able to enjoy the profound simplicity of Jesus on one level, while the intelligentsia of his day grasped the deeper meaning of his teachings, which were embedded in his manifold hints on a higher level.  Jesus' distinctive manner of teaching was sophisticated.

            *        *        *        *
        Hillel was a leading figure among the Jewish sages.  One may assume that he died in approximately 10 C.E.  If so, it is possible that when Jesus was twelve years old, he met Hillel among the sages in the Temple area.  The boy was in the middle of the wise teachers of the law, listening to them and posing clever questions (Lk 2:46-27).

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

David Flusser, "Hillel and Jesus: Two Ways of Self-Awareness," in J. H. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus: Comparisons of Two Major Religious Leaders (Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 1997), 93-94,

Yes, the parallels with Hillel are particularly interesting.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

I am in a personal long term study project (when I have the time, *laughs maniacally*) that I call "finding Jesus".

I would like to discuss in this thread the simple yes, no, or maybe, likely, not likely of Jesus of Nazareth's existence.  I don't want to discuss his divinity or not; whether the miracles are real or not; or anything else theological about him; or any faith/spirit knowledge.  Just whether or not he was born and died at the approximate time attributed to him in the New Testament to the degree that can be born out by historical methods.

For me, I say it that I find it likely that he existed.  My two main pieces for this are: the note in Josephus; and the New Testament as historical documents (because otherwise they were made up whole cloth, which I am not dismissing, but I don't find that likely with the information I presently have).

I am curious about any one else's study, references, pieces, ideas, evidences, thought experiments, etc--that others find convincing or compelling--either way, any answer.  For example, I don't have the background knowledge to evaluate the NT text as being faithful to the time period or anachronistic, but perhaps someone here does . . . or etc etc etc etc etc etc. . . books recommended for me to read . . . . etc etc etc etc etc

?

The fact that Paul, who writes within something like 15 years of Jesus' death, has first-hand interactions with the brother of Jesus, is strong evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus.

If it helps, there is broad consensus from historians that Jesus was in fact a historical person. The "mythicists" are very much on the fringes.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, the parallels with Hillel are particularly interesting.

Yes, and Jesus was a Pharisaic rabbi, and can be placed squarely within what is now known as Beit-Hillel -- so far as his preaching of Judaism was concerned.

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I am in a personal long term study project (when I have the time, *laughs maniacally*) that I call "finding Jesus".

I would like to discuss in this thread...

...I am curious about any one else's study, references, pieces, ideas, evidences, thought experiments, etc--that others find convincing or compelling--either way, any answer....books recommended for me to read...  

Thought Experiment

Referring to your working title, a premise I wrestled with as a young man was this simple seed...Had I lived in the early first century, regardless of my age or condition, would I have found/recognized/followed Christ? (Sparked likely by the echoing...woe unto you who say if you had lived in the day of your fathers...) Wondering what kind of person I would need to become to be properly observant, watchful, and in tune...to not miss that important boat.  Parallel with the lesser question of, had I  been born outside the chruch, likel most people, would I have eventually found/received it (perhaps an echo of Saturday's Warriors)?

Even setting on the shelf for a momoent the cruciial importace of the spiritual gospel, when we consider the temporal devastation the Jews were faced with in 70 AD, the counsel offered in Judea and Galilee was of no minor import, even for a skeptically-inclined, secular-minded person. Ditto with a costly Civil War here in the states after the Saints withdrew. 

Carrot (and tomatoes, etc.)  And fair warning of the reality of the pending Stick. Speaking softly, but urgently.

After percolating on that kinda thing for a few years, and taking a few notes along the way, I was assigned in a duo team to plan and roll out a short ward production on Bethlehem near Christmas to be held in the stage/gym. Part of a ward party for all ages, as I recall.  Which involved writing a script and working with the actors a bit, including the shepherd halflings. 

I'm still a work in progress, with many flaws, but that thought experiment has served me reasonably well over the years. I believe it has kept me more humble and seeking than I might otherwise have been. More open to the opinioins, beliefs, and practices of those both in and out of my church who suggest things that they have found to be of value.

My brother who loves drama raised his kids on the "Scriptures Come Alive" approach to FHE. Haveing them act out events in passages.

It was something akin to that

Trying to put myself in the shoes of a typical inhabitant of Palestine, and walking a mile (or twain) in their sandals. 

 

Suggested read...

For the issue I mentioned in the previous post, of where prophecy meets history:

http://candlestickstudio.com/files/1844inProphecy.pdf

Chapter 4, and the appendix, should suffice for what you're specifcally asking.

Or if you prefer to turn physical pages, a few offer it on Amazon. Perhaps also the likes of Alibris & Ebay. Dunno about them. 

But since only one chapter and the appendix answer *directly* what you're seeking today, and time is precious, rather than pour through chapters you don't need right now, I suggest simply taking what you need there online, and move on with getting your project written and out there doing some good.

At a later point, you might choose to read the other chapters...which are essentially an outgrowth of the thought experiment.

Edited July 20, 2017 by hagoth7

[thesometimesaint]

I think a good case can be made for Yeshua bar Yosef was a real person. Yeshua bar El is a matter of religion.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

I think a person named Jesus probably existed based on what historians say.  The myth about him, in my opinion, started after his death like myths are created about many historical figures and current figures.

[Maidservant]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

It's fair to ask how Christianity could develop in the 1st century without some source for it. Ignoring modern and personal revelation for the moment, it seems reasonable from a purely secular perspective that something was behind it. However most of the documents we have are well after the fact - and with Paul's writings from people unacquainted with him. But Paul presents there being a Jerusalem center and they appear to have known Jesus. It doesn't exactly seem the sort of thing one could lie about well only a decade or two after Christ's death.

Now pointing to what he said that was accurate seems a fool's errand and I find a lot of the "historical Jesus" stuff to be pretty speculative.

Right.  I mean, if there wasn't a Jesus, then there had to have been some pretty dedicated people to make it all up, and then one would be moved to ask--who was that?  Because even at the level of basic life wisdom, the New Testament is pretty spectacular.  Even wondering if Jesus said what when--well if he didn't, someone did (and who), because we have a document even today, transmission sketchiness notwithstanding.

Paul fascinates me to no end.  Totally have a crush.

And in my current understanding, Paul's letters are much earlier than the so called 4 gospels.  For me, that means Paul is more credible.  So I would read Paul and almost negate the gospels. But should I take it that way?

And on the surface level, Paul's Jesus seems to be one that HE (Paul) made or shaped according to Paul being his amazing self.  But divergent from the gospels--which are, as I understand them, about 100 years after.  Anyway.  I don't really know enough scholarship to talk more intelligently, this is just my own reading of Paul's letters myself, beginning with the earliest one.

[Maidservant]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

Isaiah 53

 

Thoughts?

I am not as familiar with Daniel, but Isaiah 53 is one of my favorite scriptures, and my own conclusion of it, is that it absolutely has nothing to do with Jesus nor with even a Messiah.  My conclusion is that Isaiah was--breathtakingly--describe all of us slobs and how we congratulate ourselves for our being clean and others dirty, when in reality nobody is in a vacuum, and other people's sins are ours because we are all in a community and you can't tell where the thread picks up and where the thread ends.  But we feel better after we punish the other person, as if who they are isn't a product of millennia of DNA and conditioning and of the world of mammon not to mention their sins being the 'mote end' of the beam in our own eye.  I personally think tying Isaiah 53 to Jesus does a great disservice to the very deep call to repentance and having our eyes opened that the passage means.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

32 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think a good case can be made for Yeshua bar Yosef was a real person. Yeshua bar El is a matter of religion.

Yes, I always call him Joshua.  (I know that's not exactly right either . . . .)

[snowflake]

2 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I am in a personal long term study project (when I have the time, *laughs maniacally*) that I call "finding Jesus".

I would like to discuss in this thread the simple yes, no, or maybe, likely, not likely of Jesus of Nazareth's existence.  I don't want to discuss his divinity or not; whether the miracles are real or not; or anything else theological about him; or any faith/spirit knowledge.  Just whether or not he was born and died at the approximate time attributed to him in the New Testament to the degree that can be born out by historical methods.

For me, I say it that I find it likely that he existed.  My two main pieces for this are: the note in Josephus; and the New Testament as historical documents (because otherwise they were made up whole cloth, which I am not dismissing, but I don't find that likely with the information I presently have).

I am curious about any one else's study, references, pieces, ideas, evidences, thought experiments, etc--that others find convincing or compelling--either way, any answer.  For example, I don't have the background knowledge to evaluate the NT text as being faithful to the time period or anachronistic, but perhaps someone here does . . . or etc etc etc etc etc etc. . . books recommended for me to read . . . . etc etc etc etc etc

?

The testimony of the 12 apostles and the way they were martyred is a very interesting study.  It would be impossible for these 12 to come up with the NT story, and the resurrection, and then die the horrific ways they did all for a lie......they truly believed that he was risen!

[Maidservant]

3 minutes ago, snowflake said:

The testimony of the 12 apostles and the way they were martyred is a very interesting study.  It would be impossible for these 12 to come up with the NT story, and the resurrection, and then die the horrific ways they did all for a lie......they truly believed that he was risen!

Where do you find the testimony of the 12 apostles?

[snowflake]

16 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Right.  I mean, if there wasn't a Jesus, then there had to have been some pretty dedicated people to make it all up, and then one would be moved to ask--who was that?  Because even at the level of basic life wisdom, the New Testament is pretty spectacular.  Even wondering if Jesus said what when--well if he didn't, someone did (and who), because we have a document even today, transmission sketchiness notwithstanding.

Paul fascinates me to no end.  Totally have a crush.

And in my current understanding, Paul's letters are much earlier than the so called 4 gospels.  For me, that means Paul is more credible.  So I would read Paul and almost negate the gospels. But should I take it that way?

And on the surface level, Paul's Jesus seems to be one that HE (Paul) made or shaped according to Paul being his amazing self.  But divergent from the gospels--which are, as I understand them, about 100 years after.  Anyway.  I don't really know enough scholarship to talk more intelligently, this is just my own reading of Paul's letters myself, beginning with the earliest one.

There are no NT letters that comment on, or document the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which happened around 70AD. Some scholars claim that because there is no mention of this disaster all the gospels and letters must have been penned pre 70 AD.

[hagoth7]

7 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I am not as familiar with Daniel, but Isaiah 53 is one of my favorite scriptures, and my own conclusion of it, is that it absolutely has nothing to do with Jesus nor with even a Messiah.  My conclusion is that Isaiah was--breathtakingly--describe all of us slobs and how we congratulate ourselves for our being clean and others dirty, when in reality nobody is in a vacuum, and other people's sins are ours because we are all in a community and you can't tell where the thread picks up and where the thread ends.  But we feel better after we punish the other person, as if who they are isn't a product of millennia of DNA and conditioning and of the world of mammon.  I personally think tying Isaiah 53 to Jesus does a great disservice to the very deep call to repentance and having our eyes opened that the passage means.

1. I am confident that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus of Nazareth. That said, can we put that assertion on the shelf for just a moment, either to simmer or cool, your choice? 

2. I am beyond interested, and grateful, for your suggestion that such things are intended for broader and more helpful application for each generation, beyond acceptance/appreciation for what happened in Galilee/Judea. Something I hadn't considered with that passage, but aligns well with  Nephi's counsel to liken....

Based on that, the next time I read through Isaiah 53, I'll try to do so through your lens. I look forward to what I find there. Thank you for the suggestion. If you've written  something on your view of that chapter, I'd love to consider it.

As to dual application...since fractals are surprisingly common, we can both be right, and likely are. If you choose to explore the few chapters I suggested earlier, you might find harmony between the who/what/when of Daniel 9, and the who/what of Isaiah 53. (Isaiah 53 is discussed there.) If that doesn't interest you, understood.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by hagoth7

[snowflake]

15 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Where do you find the testimony of the 12 apostles?

Start with 1 Corinthians 15. Their testimony is throughout the NT. 

[rpn]

Given that Mohammed about 600 AD talked about Jesus as a historical figure, at least we know that he thought He existed on earth.

[LittleNipper]

I would suggest watching the Movies: GOD is not Dead! and GOD is not Dead 2! 

I see no logical reason to imagine that Jesus never existed. Yes, I do believe He was/is God in the flesh. And yes, I believe that all the miracles credited to Jesus were in fact true --- along with many not revealed.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and Jesus was a Pharisaic rabbi, and can be placed squarely within what is now known as Beit-Hillel -- so far as his preaching of Judaism was concerned.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. The relationship with John in particular is odd and outside what we'd expect from a Pharisee. There are also parallels with the Essenes who oddly aren't even mentioned in the NT.