https://www.amazon.com/s?k=marginal+jew+meier&crid=3BG9FJ0B2LISF&sprefix=marginal+jew+meier+%2Caps%2C81&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

its exhaustive, scholarly, and non-shitlib. Most importantly, the author acknowledges from the beginning that the historical jesus quest is itself a historical quirk, and has no real bearing on faith in Christ. This is not to say that jesus of nazereth is not historical, but that the "historical life" quest about any ancient is kind of like a game.

It's somewhat like a project aiming to use available historical data about Napoleon to imagine him as a world war two american general. It's doable, it's interesting, you can use rationality and inferences to fit historical pieces together in a certain way... but it makes no claim on the REAL napoleon, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44929888)

examples: Jesus forbidding divorce, and Jesus talking about consuming his body and blood.

Multiple sources are another criterion, as is recency of authorship, etc. The eucharistic language of eating the body and blood flies through all the tests.

So do, interestingly, miracle stories. He concludes that whatever one's beliefs about Jesus working miracles, its excessively probable that during the life of Jesus of Nazareth he was very publicly known as a miracle worker.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44929962)

...

Turow was born in Chicago, to a family of Russian Jewish descent.[3]

LMAO, nevermind.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44932169)

explain?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44933096)

I think he was gonna stage a revolt at the temple. 12 apostles, one for each tribe. Jesus was the ringleader. The shepherd. He raised the sheep they were there to sacrifice. The ones they didn't buy with money.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44936238)

Can you elaborate

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44929970)

the idea of doing "history" is a historically situated idea. for most cultures, and for most of human history, it would be incomprehensible. We imagine history to be some kind of secular, objective, agenda-free video recording of the events of a life.

That's philosophically fraught.

Even if an ancient *could* understand our request for a "history" of the battle of Troy, they might wonder why the fuck we wanted it. And that's a good question. We lead with this idea that we want the writing to be agenda-free, "neutral". But how can you *want* anything written with no agenda? Its circular and nonsensical. It stems, imo, from our bad ideas about science, which we also think is "neutral".

Anyway, its compounded when you demand a "historical" accounting of an ancient life, using only extant documents written by people who did not share any common ground on what "history" means.

The evangelists and Paul loved Jesus, believed him to be the Son of God, and believed his life story would inspire and encourage their readers. They had no interest in neutrality.

Nor did readers for 18 centuries. Sometime recently, enlightenment eurofags and people like Thomas Jefferson decided to "find" a historical Jesus. Jefferson famously took scissors and cut passages out of the NT to create a "true" Jesus.

It's a project, a parlor game. Its fun. It suits our modern personality. But to engage in scripture on its own terms, you must face an existential question: do I believe? And that question is not even countenanced in building a portrait of historical jesus with lego blocks

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44930066)

I am just getting into this historical Jesus stuff (reading the case for Jesus by brant pitre). Solid and easy read that makes me not really care to spend an inordinate amount of time on the issue. It seems these questions will never be entirely settled

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44930128)

*cries*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44931705)

I’m at a bar with my friends just lmao and can’t even tell them

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44931787)

But yes try A Catholic introduction to the Bible (the Old Testament)

Also try (the case for Jesus)

He has a subscription for the mass readings explained every Sunday that is great too

All around good dude who has opened the scripture to me like no other. You’re very smart so I’d be interested to see what you think. He’s legit imo but I’m interested to see what you think

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44931849)

(Aim for Heaven, and we will somehow get [the] Earth[ly womb] thrown in, as C.S. Lewis said!)

And last but not least, I’ve very honored that you value my input, my brother. He is now in my queue (reading, audiobook listening, online watching - the good kind of diversity!)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44931872)

He pwns Bart ehrman who appears to be a shitlib Jesus historicity scholar. Obviously the debate is up for grabs but pitre does a good job of being a neutral yet very Catholic and beautiful bro

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44932172)

Sounds 180^180

"Please do bro and let me know your thoughts"

:-)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44932247)

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162623&mc=18&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44931880)

This is the perfect attitude, IMHO: we are all incredibly blessed to encounter God's artistry all around us, including within our own home and community.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44932242)

!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44931890)

And I ask for my own edification — I.e. I am not being a shithead

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44931924)

LOL'd at this, tyvm: a gorgeous rite of passage for us all at some time or another.

I think I love it so much (of course our innermost heart, the inner sanctum of the soul, is only perfectly known to the Artist who created us), because it's the earnest mindset we can all relate to deep down in our childlike past: wanting to sow the seeds of love, and it never even occurring to us that we would pretend that we don't passionately love what we love.

It's the antithesis of shitliberalism, which is always based on deceit of some kind, the bait and switch, the camel's nose. (Including lying to oneself in many cases: consider all the libs over the years who are GENUINELY shocked that they have been discarded in service of the eternally leftward march to Hades.)

And of course a cynical person (and nearly all of these "impartial" "truth seekers" on XO turn out to be disgruntled Jews, but that's a complete coincidence, LMAO) could say: "Well maybe all those Christian evangelists are just running a scam, preying on your good nature as libs (and Jews) do!"

But of course the question as always is: if Christianity is a scam, then why the staggeringly beautiful fruits - Gothic cathedrals, Disneyland, Bach, wholesome families and communities beyond anything else in world history - and the answer is, as always: Good trees produce good fruits.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44932264)

This is another great point, that the modern “Western” “mind” rebels against, as C.S. Lewis said (without my added quotation marks, of course, lmao):

We are accustomed to putting “God in the dock” (which includes the loss of deference to and reverence for our sacred ancestral traditions).

Our ancestors, Lewis said, were not chronological snobs like we are, and also understood the profound dangers of putting God in the dock (expecting God to defer to us, instead of deferring to Him and His Logos).

As Matt Fradd said recently, the traditional view is first to know God through a proper unbringing (cultivating the right responses to things as Lewis said); then to love God now that His artistic structure is in focus; then to serve God (which anyone in their right mind would do when considering a perfect being: follow in His wake like obedient ducklings or sheep and/or assisting sheepdogs).

But today it’s been precisely reversed (the utopian State always takes the place of God, as Peter Kreeft observed).

“We” must first (blindly - that’s part of the power trip) serve the social engineering whims of the Globalized Corporate State - or else! (the “conditioners in charge,” as Lewis warned in Abolition of Man);

“We” must convince ourselves and others to love the obviously ugly (inside and usually out) losers in charge of all “our” skinsuited institutions, the Orwellian victory over one’s Noticing;

“We” must come up with endless rationalizations about how the “creative destruction” of “our” “elites” is leading to the inevitable “rainbow” (((utopia)))…

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44931997)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44932615)

history is the events, all of them, exitus et reditus, all people can do is at best attempt to make a faithful rendering.

in their work, scholars always communicate more than they think, and it is a fun game to find the ball, then another. a good pleading or brief is probably the worst departure from neutrality as lawyers sympathetically tell their client's story just shy of overt deception, because ofc the goal is not an agenda-free recording of the events. a courtroom decision maker announces what officially took place in history, damages, and that is reality until overturned. we have to expect the same shameless lack of neutrality from historical accounts, adjusting the level of scrutiny for patterns of deceit. (which are fascinating imo and deserve their own thread) academia, marketing, journalism they all whorishly advocate for their clients with common purpose and intend to deceive when within the law, then press and press for more advantage until able to restrict, censor, delete the opposition's case from public consciousness because it is winner take all. the zealotry is good its easier to note similar trends across time as well as spot periods and people that get papered-over without explanation. we have competing claims re Christ's divinity that are irreconcilable and Christ had all the power and opportunity to write an autobiography and perform an extra 10-15 miracles before Pilate for good measure but no accounting by itself would convince. Thomas had to feel the wounds to believe. Gospels were not meant to read like historical accounts, they're pretty streamlined to just give the Good News of the new and eternal Covenant: fulfillment of prophecy, Christ's ministry, miracles, sacraments, passion, death, resurrection, Church founding, ascension - his historical portrait continued IN the Eucharist which is in the faithful, who came to him through the Church. ofc there's a lot of passionate history there and its a matter of faith. all that pathos and ethos does not obscure Christianity's logos. agreed it does suit our modern personalities to "find" Jesus like a parlor game puzzle. the full entire uncut history is unknowable but what isn't.

it is frustrating because all our sources are edited, some "lost" but everything is an indicator toward one conclusion or the other no matter how inconspicuous.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44932603)

lol cr

I, for one, really care extremely deeply about what literally schizophrenic Jewish guys have to say about Jesus Christ and Christianity! If Christianity is ever going to save the white race, I think it's imperative that we all spend a lot of time listening to them explain this whole "Jesus thing" to us!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5162945&forum_id=2#44936255)