Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
ahh, I see, I was missing your point. I would imagine people tested what Jesus said in that day too (assuming his existence and the correctness of the gospels). I don't know how people tested what he said, except against scripture (as he does quote scripture - Old Testament).
|
But we must also acknowledge a couple of things: The "tests" devised for evaluating the weight of Jesus's teachings (I am deliberately avoiding the word "accuracy" since it does not really apply in the same sense in its ancient context) were nothing like the sorts of tests we employ today. The burden of proof was much lower, and there was little benefit of corroborating evidence (photographs, newspaper accounts, official records/transcripts, etc.). As for the "fulfillment" of the Old Testament, this is also something of a red herring, since the contemporary interpretation of scripture always and must take precedence over the actual source of scripture. This is most clearly demonstrated in Matthew's hackneyed attempt to show that the virgin birth was a "fulfillment" of Isaiah 7:14.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
...people in Jesus time would have seen his miracles, so to me that would be one test (and likely the most significant). if he actually did the miracles that the bible says he did, that's more than the bus guy or the dali lama.
|
It is highly unlikely that he did, though. The same people who witnessed Jesus's miracles were the same people who witnessed "miracles" from a large number of contemporary miracle workers, such as Hani the Circle-Drawer. In my mind, the miracles of Jesus are a poor gauge for determining his validity—when these stories were circulated and then written down, they served a different function, and most were composed as part of a larger narrative. For example, Jesus's miracles in Luke's Gospel are deliberately crafted to emulate the miracles performed by Elijah and Elisha in 2 Kings, in an effort to stake a claim to Jesus prophetic heritage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
...his teaching gets at the heart of what God wants from us, and wasn't for his gain (he knew on some level he would be crucified for what he was saying).
|
This is also problematic, given that Jesus actual teachings are often buried under layers of church theology, and even those that we can access must be carefully considered in consort with his distinction as an apocalyptic nationalistic prophet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
...also the scripture prophecies he fulfilled, like where he was born, how he died (on a cross) and rose and other things...
|
See above, and brace yourself for an onslaught of well thought out and argued refutations of the historicity of Jesus's resurrection. Fulfillment of scriptural prophecies should probably not be cited in support of legitimating claims, but rather need to be understood as part of crafting a theological narrative in accordance with a given theme or point. For example, It is only in John's Gospel that Jesus is nailed to the cross, and only according to John does he die on the day of the preparation of the passover. This is quite simply because John's message is that Jesus was the "lamb of god that takes away the sins of the world".
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
...people then did criticize what he said, the pharisees (the religious elite of the time) wanted to crucify him for what he said (probably more because he was becoming more popular than them and called them a brood of vipers etc though)...
|
Jesus was executed by the Romans, NOT the Jews. While it is true that his execution likely received support from the Jerusalem Temple regime for political reasons, he was punished for ROMAN sedition and treason, and almost certainly NOT for blasphemy. Also, the Pharisees were not the religious elites in Palestine at the time of Jesus's death. The perception that they were is a product of the gospel literature which was mostly composed after the destruction of the Second Temple, and at a time when this Jewish sect gained considerable prominence in the absence of the Temple religion.