Jesus Was a Great Man

Originally posted by Gregory
Tacticus and Pliny don't talk about his teachings, do they? They just mention that he lived and was crucified. I certainly never questiond that.

Again, I'm not saying that I think Jesus was a bad guy; just that if he was, we'd never know. It's the sort of thing that's interesting to consider for an hour or two, but not much use in practice.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, naturally the Bible is all we really have for his teachings. That and the writings of the early church fathers.

We also have the Gnostic Gospels.

Too late of a date.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Too late of a date.

Incorrect, the copies we have are from 300 AD, but the originals are probably much older. However, the early church destroyed the originals. Why did they destroy them?

No, not incorrect. The majority of scholarly opinion puts the oldest gnostic gospel at 140AD for a date of composition. That is too late to be of use. The church didn't destroy them. The denied their validity, but they never destroyed them as they would have been unable to do so.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, not incorrect. The majority of scholarly opinion puts the oldest gnostic gospel at 140AD for a date of composition. That is too late to be of use. The church didn't destroy them. The denied their validity, but they never destroyed them as they would have been unable to do so.

140AD ok that is just as old as all of the other Gospels then.

No it's not. The oldest gospel is John which about 90AD. 60 years later, ie. one generation, instead of 110 years and no living eyewitnesses.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No it's not. The oldest gospel is John which about 90AD. 60 years later, ie. one generation, instead of 110 years and no living eyewitnesses.

John was written just like Luke was written. They are rewrites from a unknown Gospel (X Gospel) and are not the original.

Luke and John are nothing alike. They are obvious not rewrites of the same thing. Besides that, the Q document theory is rather unsubstantiated. Besides that, they were written well before 140AD.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, naturally the Bible is all we really have for his teachings. That and the writings of the early church fathers.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Luke and John are nothing alike. They are obvious not rewrites of the same thing. Besides that, the Q document theory is rather unsubstantiated. Besides that, they were written well before 140AD.

So, you do know what I'm talking about. 😄

Originally posted by lord xyz
Not even the Romans? The ones who crucified him?

That said, there were Romans that do record Jesus's teachings. These are the church fathers.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Why would the Romans record the teachings of a Jew in Palestine whom they executed? Why would they record anyone's teachings?

That said, there were Romans that do record Jesus's teachings. These are the church fathers.

That is correct. Jesus was not a big enough problem to get the attention of the Romans.

No religious leader from the inside ever was really until after Constantine.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No religious leader from the inside ever was really until after Constantine.

From the inside? From the inside of what?

Inside the Roman Empire.

It seems strange to me that the Romans did not take notice to a man going around and healing the sick and raising the dead. It would be like if today a person where to heal the sick and raise the dead but never get on the news. Even the crack pots and con artists of today get news coverage.

Well, the Romans never had the news. Besides that, the Romans had a much more spiritually diverse culture than our own. They believed many things and I'd assume healings weren't an extraordinary claim at the time.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Well, the Romans never had the news. Besides that, the Romans had a much more spiritually diverse culture than our own. They believed many things and I'd assume healings weren't an extraordinary claim at the time.

However, I believe that Jesus was alive during the time of emperor Claudius. Claudius was a man who was plagued with illness. If the governor of Palestine had send a healing slave to the emperor, he would have gained great favor in the empire. Why did he miss this opportunity?

Because that would not have been that politically prudent. There likely would have been a revolt in Jerusalem which would have lead to Pilate's removal from office anyways. On top of that, Jesus likely wouldn't have healed Claudius under those circumstances. Furthermore, Jesus wasn't a slave, nor would Pilate have been allowed to take him as one from my understanding.