Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The resurrection (or not) of Jesus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    That's why I made the 'What if Jesus had lived into old age?' thread.

    Would he, like the Prophet Mohammed, have become more political/militaristic if he had not died young?


    Philip
    Last edited by PhilipLaos; 17 May 13, 22:26.
    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Druzhina View Post
      Yes, you can us "contextual analysis" to put a spin on this but my statement stands:

      It is not true that there is NO indication at all of militant politics.

      Druzhina
      Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers
      Before we go any further, define "militant politics". Because militant has several connotations.

      If by militant you mean warlike then no the statement does not stand. Unless you can find me a verse where he calls his followers to declare war on Rome. That's not spin. That's record.

      If by militant you mean fanatical and unyielding then we have more room for discussion.
      A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by PhilipLaos View Post
        That's why I made the 'What if Jesus had lived into old age?' thread.

        Would he, like the Prophet Mohammed, have become more political/militaristic if he had not died young?


        Philip
        It is my understanding that people get LESS militant as they age. I have no link but I have heard that the younger a country is (as in average age of citizens) the more likely it is to go to war.
        A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
          It is my understanding that people get LESS militant as they age. I have no link but I have heard that the younger a country is (as in average age of citizens) the more likely it is to go to war.
          That might apply to 'militant'. But it is a well established observation that people (and perhaps societies and movements) become less idealistic and more practical (political) as they age.

          Unlike Mohammed, Jesus's ministry and leadership of his small cult lasted very few (how many?) years, with not huge numbers of (how many?) followers. He didn't really have time and enough followers to establish a viable political movement, assuming he might have wanted to had he lived.


          Philip
          Last edited by PhilipLaos; 18 May 13, 00:34.
          "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell

          Comment


          • #35
            Re. my post above:

            For how many years did Jesus teach and how many followers did he have by the time of his crucifiction?

            (And why does my Firefox spell checker say I have spelt crucifiction incorrectly?)

            EDIT: Americans want 'crucifixion'.

            Philip
            "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by PhilipLaos View Post
              Re. my post above:

              For how many years did Jesus teach and how many followers did he have by the time of his crucifiction?

              (And why does my Firefox spell checker say I have spelt crucifiction incorrectly?)

              EDIT: Americans want 'crucifixion'.

              Philip
              Three years is the commonly accepted answer. Followers unknown. He had twelve close compatriots we call disciples and apostles but several more camp followers and an unknown number of fans.
              A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by PhilipLaos View Post
                That might apply to 'militant'. But it is a well established observation that people (and perhaps societies and movements) become less idealistic and more practical (political) as they age.

                Unlike Mohammed, Jesus's ministry and leadership of his small cult lasted very few (how many?) years, with not huge numbers of (how many?) followers. He didn't really have time and enough followers to establish a viable political movement, assuming he might have wanted to had he lived.


                Philip
                His not being a Pharisee or Sadducee would rule him out of any formal leadership in the Game of Thrones going on in Jerusalem. However, had his message taken better root under his personal leadership I'd wager he might prevent the sack of Jerusalem. Also had his following not become a splinter group he might gain more renown as a rabbi.

                There is some theorizing that he was an Essene in early years.

                http://www.intrepidmag.com/blog/jesu...ne-connection/

                http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

                But those fellas were a strange Iron Age cross (in appearance) between Amish, Benedictine Monk, and Apocalypse Prepper and were generally not politically active, certainly not recognized in the Sanhedrin.

                The good ol' boy system that ran Jerusalem would definitely screen him out of formal leadership though.
                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Arthwys View Post
                  I don't think there's definitive proof either way as to how long after or shortly after Jesus' death, they were written. I don't believe that they were written immediately after however... there's conjecture about many things in regards to the canonical gospels including who they were or weren't written by. no proof either way for that either.
                  While there is some conjecture as to when the Gospels were written, my understanding from reading some books by Bart Ehrman, who is a New Testament scholar, the general consensus is this:

                  - Jesus' crucifixion around 30 CE.

                  - 49 CE, 1 Thessalonians written by Paul. This is his earliest writing and the earliest surviving example of Christian writing.

                  - Between 65 - 70 CE, the Gospel of Mark is written.

                  - 80 - 85 CE, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are written.

                  - 90 - 95 CE, Gospel of John is written.

                  Matthew and Luke borrowed much of their material of Mark, in many cases word-for-word. On the other hand there is material in both Matthew and Luke that is not found in Mark. The stories found in Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark is believed to come from a source no,longer available to us. Scholars refer to this source as "Q", which is short for Quelle (German for source).

                  Matthew also has stories that are unique to it, and not found in either Mark of Luke. These stories, it surmised came from another source which scholars call "M" (Matthews special source).

                  Luke, also has stories unique to it and this source is labeled "L" (Luke's special source).

                  The Gospel of John is a lot more complicated as there many stories in John that are not found in the first three Gospels. Also, Jesus is portrayed more as a divine being as opposed to the first three that show him as a human messiah.

                  As for the source of these stories, my understanding is that scholars believe that the author of the Gospel of John relied on several different sources (possible both oral and written) when he wrote the gospel. Again, sources that have been lost through time. Its also possible that the author of John had never seen the three previous gospels which would explain why they have no stories in common.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Howdy northern! We had a discussion on Q too now that you mention it. Interesting topic it is. Welcome aboard!

                    Here ya go:

                    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=130878
                    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X