No, I think he was supposedly naturally skinny, ate whatever he wanted without putting on weight. (Could have been his genes, or maybe it was a divine transmutation power: turning a loaf of fat to exhaled argon gas or something.)
MM, Luke is now an eye witness??? Nomar, I wish there was an easy way to find that previous thread's link, where we beat the historicity of Jesus with a stick. I will summarize the "Jesus never exist" theory. The first known books of the New Testament were Paul's letters (only the first five of which are considered by historians to be written by Paul). These letters have a glaring omission of a historic Jesus of Nazareth. One would expect that the oral histories that later became the Gospels would cast a shadow on Paul's teaching, but they do not. The four Gospels were written down after Paul's letters. Their date of origin is hotly debated. Bible scholars want to date the Gospels as close as possible to the "lifetime" of Jesus. Other historians have dated the Gospel origins as much as 100 years after Jesus's "death". The earliest extant copies of the Gospels date to ~150 AD (or CE, Common Era, for the politically correct). Not all of the extant copies of the Gospels agree word for word with each other. The church founders canonized the four Gospels by the end of the second century AD. There were many different savior/messiah sects in the Holy Land in the first two centuries AD. Some believed in an earthly Jesus, while others did not (Paul's sect). It was not until the end of second century that the earthly Jesus sect took control of Christianity. When that sect took over, all of the Christian religious books were separated into the "inspired" (i.e. canonical) and uninspired. Naturally, the inspired books included the four Gospels which proclaim an earthly Jesus. Researchers have shown that the majority of the sayings and the deeds of Jesus from the Gospels predate Jesus's "life". Many of the Gospel influences (as well as Paul's Christianity) were notably Greek. Many of the "Jesus never existed" authors claim that Christianity is just a Hellenized Judaism. Biblical scholars reply on the histories written by Josephus to independently show that Jesus walked the earth. Besides being born after Jesus "died" (i.e. he could not have had any first hand knowledge of Jesus), historians now consider that the passages in question are most likely added later by Christian scribes. IMO the most optimistic view of the Gospels is that they are a oral history of Jesus and need to be taken as an article of faith.
I'll let someone else say it...admittedly from a Christian website: http://www.equip.org/free/DB011.htm We have more than 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Old Testament of three main types: (a) approximately 10,000 from the Cairo Geniza (storeroom) find of 1897, dating back as far as about AD. 800; (b) about 190 from the Dead Sea Scrolls find of 1947-1955, the oldest dating back to 250-200 B.C.; and (c) at least 4,314 assorted other copies. The short time between the original Old Testament manuscripts (completed around 400 B.C.) and the first extensive copies (about 250 B.C.) — coupled with the more than 14,000 copies that have been discovered — ensures the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text. The earliest quoted verses (Num. 6:24-26) date from 800-700 B.C. The same is true of the New Testament text. The abundance of textual witnesses is amazing. We possess over 5,300 manuscripts or portions of the (Greek) New Testament — almost 800 copied before A.D. 1000. The time between the original composition and our earliest copies is an unbelievably short 60 years or so. The overwhelming bibliographic reliability of the Bible is clearly evident. The eyewitness document test (“E”), sometimes referred to as the internal test, focuses on the eyewitness credentials of the authors. The Old and New Testament authors were eyewitnesses of — or interviewed eyewitnesses of — the majority of the events they described. Moses participated in and was an eyewitness of the remarkable events of the Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, the forty years in the desert, and Israel’s final encampment before entering the Promised Land. These events he chronicled in the first five books of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers had the same eyewitness authenticity. Luke, who wrote the Books of Luke and Acts, says that he gathered eyewitness testimony and “carefully investigated everything” (Luke 1:1-3). Peter reminded his readers that the disciples “were eyewitnesses of [Jesus’] majesty” and “did not follow cleverly invented stories” (2 Pet. 1:16). Truly, the Bible affirms the eyewitness credibility of its writers. The external evidence test looks outside the texts themselves to ascertain the historical reliability of the historical events, geographical locations, and cultural consistency of the biblical texts. Unlike writings from other world religions which make no historical references or which fabricate histories, the Bible refers to historical events and assumes its historical accuracy. The Bible is not only the inspired Word of God, it is also a history book — and the historical assertions it makes have been proven time and again. Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are confirmed by secular historians who were almost contemporaries with New Testament writers. Secular historians like the Jewish Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) make direct reference to Jesus or affirm one or more historical New Testament references. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome — all writing before A.D. 250 — shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. Even skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical document. Hence, it is clear that there is strong external evidence to support the Bible’s manuscript reliability. Over and over again, comprehensive field work (archaeology) and careful biblical interpretation affirms the reliability of the Bible. It is telling when a secular scholar must revise his biblical criticism in light of solid archaeological evidence. For years critics dismissed the Book of Daniel, partly because there was no evidence that a king named Belshazzar ruled in Babylon during that time period. However, later archaeological research confirmed that the reigning monarch, Nabonidus, appointed Belshazzar as his co-regent whi1e he was away from Babylon. One of the most well-known New Testament examples concerns the Books of Luke and Acts. A biblical skeptic, Sir William Ramsay, trained as an archaeologist and then set out to disprove the historical reliability of this portion of the New Testament. However, through his painstaking Mediterranean archaeological trips, he became converted as — one after another — of the historical statements of Luke were proved accurate. No Worries -- because Paul doesn't say the words, "Jesus of Nazareth", it's all made up? I don't have my Bible with me at work today...but Peter wrote letters after the resurrection confirming Jesus of Nazareth and his resurrection. He was a contemporary of Paul. this is from the article off the CNN website made the subject of this thread: most scholars agree that Jesus existed... Very few make the argument that Jesus never existed. I've heard it said, "oh he was a great leader...just not the Son of God." And I've heard it said, "He was very persuasive...he tricked them, etc." But very rarely do I come across anyone who claims he never existed.
And here we go again ... No Worries -- because Paul doesn't say the words, "Jesus of Nazareth", it's all made up? The town of Nazareth has no archeologist record before ~150 CE. It would be really hard to Paul to write about a town that would not be founded for another 100 years!!!
I am not sure what you mean by "Christian life." There is a fragment of John's Gospel dated at the 2nd century. Does that count as "physical signs of Christian life"? BTW, why do you assume that biblical archaeology is necessarily unreliable while archaeology is? Are you aware of the wide range of religious backgrounds among biblical archaeologists?
First of all...ease up, No Worries. I'm not insulting you...I'm just asking. Second...what's your source for that?
Secular historians like the Jewish Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) make direct reference to Jesus or affirm one or more historical New Testament references. Historians 70+ years after the fact making references to Jesus is hardly authoritative. Historians who were comptemorary with Jesus's later "life" do not mention him. The omission of these historians from the above passage is telling. The authenticity of the Jesus passages from the above historians is in serious question. Most historians doubt that the passages are authentic. At the minimum, these passages are very controversial. For the above web site to state that these passages confirm the New Testament without listing caveats is misleading. It is telling when a secular scholar must revise his biblical criticism in light of solid archaeological evidence. It is also telling when biblical scholars do not revise their biblical support in the light of solid archaeological evidence. Nazareth was likely not a town during Jesus's lifetime. The Greek for "Nazareth" is a likely mistranslation. A better translation is "the branch" which refers to Jesus being a descendant of David. Thus, "Jesus of Nazareth" is better translated "Jesus descendant of David". Changing translations would not really effect the New Testament message, so why would the biblical scholars not embrace the new translation given the archaeological evidence (or lack thereof)? Someone asked what was wrong with biblical archaeologists/scholars. Like the Bush Admin did with Iraq WMD intel, they start with a conclusion (the bible can not be wrong) and filter through the facts only looking for those which support their conclusion. Those facts which support their conclusion are "solid" while those that do not are "highly questionable".
No Worries -- because Paul doesn't say the words, "Jesus of Nazareth", it's all made up? What if it is all made up? What if God inspired the Gospel writers to write the Parable of Jesus, that readers could use to inspire thier lifes, to live a more moral life, to get a better understanding of God, etc.? Does the validity of the Christian religion rely solely on a historic Jesus?
it does to me, personally. if he wasn't resurrected then it's nothing more than a neat way to go about living your life. one of many ways. that's not Christianity as I understand it. it's not where my faith is. it also makes huge liars out of people like Peter...casting the whole New Testament story in doubt.
As a non-Christian, I am curious why the necessity of Christ's resurrection impacts you that much. If God did intend Jesus as a parable then you would still be going to heaven for leading a Christian life, would you not? I assume you are not expecting a physical ressurection so how would that impact your faith?
I suspect that you will find the source controversial and disregard it straight away. Here it is : http://www.atheists.org/church/jesuslife.html Nazareth mistranslation: Before Jesus could be given a biography, he had to receive a name. Actually, he received several names and, as we shall see, all of his names were really titles. Thus, the name Jesus of Nazareth originally was not a name at all, but rather a title meaning (The) Savior, (The) Branch. In Hebrew this would have been Yeshua‘ Netser. The word Yeshua‘ means 'savior,' and Netser means 'sprout,' 'shoot,' or 'branch' - a reference to Isaiah 11:1, which was thought to predict a messiah (lit., 'anointed one') of the line of Jesse (King David's father): "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots" The founding of Nazareth ... At the turn of the era, there was no place called Nazareth, and it is not entirely certain that the place now called by that name was inhabited during the period in question. As far as I can tell, the place presently called Nazareth received its name from an imaginative Jessaean some time at the end of the second century or early third century - most likely after Hadrian expelled the Jews from Jerusalem in 135 CE. and Despite the excavations of the Franciscan B. Bagatti [Excavations in Nazareth, translated by F. Hoade, Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, 1969] no remains of any building datable to the first centuries BCE or CE have ever been found at present-day Nazareth, and the artifacts dated by Bagatti to "the Roman Period" are probably all later than first century CE. Moreover, most if not all of the artifacts appear to be funerary goods used in burials of residents of Japha (Japhia), a town a mile or so away which was known to Josephus Note the reference to the book written by a Franciscan monk. and a final refernce: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
The basic tennant of being a Christian is that we are all sinners and the only way to recieve salvation is to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. There is no other way to achieve Salvation because no one is capable of being perfect.
Actually, in my experience, and probably as a pre-emptive defense mechanism due to inter-disciplinary skepticism of their objectivity, 'biblical' archaeologists usuallu apply very rigorous standards on their research, and usually approach sites erring ( it is an error) on the side of looking to disprove rather than prove a Biblical connection. There are exceptions, of course, but if you want a parallel, take a look at how 'open minded' Catholic Church authorities are in approving current claims of miracles, etc. Very skeptical to say the least...I am neither Catholic, Christian, nor biblical, but I wouldn't discount an archeologist who is because of that fact alone. I agree, however, that any archeologist should approach a find without an agenda...but how many really do? How do you take away faith...or the opposite? Might there not be an incentive for non0beleiving scientists living in a believing world to approach something with the ( however subconscious) intent to disprove any possible religious conotation? What about ego...or career ambition? It's hard to get the a controlled environment and the objective observer that the ideal demands.
No Worries -- thanks for the source...i'll see if i can try to find some more about it. again...it's my understanding that most scholars don't debate that Jesus existed...they do debate who he was, though.
I suspect that most historians would say that they just do not know. They can neither prove that Jesus existed or prove that Jesus did not exist (an impossibility actually since one can not prove a negative).
