Some "Jesus mysteries" that always fascinate me

[Deborah_]

Why does Paul seem completely unaware of the historical Jesus?

You have to remember the situations in which Paul's letters were written. He wrote to churches that were already established, whose members had already been made aware of the historical facts about Jesus (the kind of stuff that's in the Gospels). The facts weren't in dispute; what was at issue was their meaning and significance.
However, there are many many allusions to Jesus' teaching in Paul's letters, even if they aren't direct quotes. See especially I Corinthians 7:10,11 and I Timothy 5:18. Then there's the "thief in the night" motif (Luke 12:39 / I Thessalonians 5:2)

Why wasn't Jesus' family fully on board with His ministry?

Of course they knew that He was the promised Messiah - but, like all the other Jews of that generation, they were expecting a totally different kind of Messiah. Rejection and crucifixion weren't part of that image.

And, of course, what about those Missing Years? Do we seriously think Jesus just emerged from a cocoon at age 30 with the sort of wisdom He showed?

There was a culture of debating the Torah throughout the Jewish community - even in the humblest village, the men would gather every evening to learn, discuss and bounce ideas off one another. And then three times a year, at the great festivals, Jesus would have had opportunity to listen to the great rabbis in Jerusalem. He was no country bumpkin, sealed off from the rest of the world - Galilee was a cosmopolitan place, with traders passing through from all over the known world.

It's widely thought that John the Baptist spent some time with the Essenes, but Jesus doesn't really have much in common with them.

 

[Taken]

I forgot about this thread! I'm surprised it didn't generate more responses. Pretty much everyone who responded focused on the Paul issue.

I'm not quite following your response. What I'm talking about is that Paul's epistles, written after his conversion experience, make no reference to the historical Jesus - the Virgin Birth, the miracles, the parables or sayings. The oral tradition that led to the Gospels was well in place by the time Paul was writing, but the historical Jesus seems unimportant to him. Many scholars have noted this mystery, so it's not as though I'm out in left field.

You gave a list of points, I responded to the first point.

Paul’s MISSION was uniquely different than the 12 disciples Jesus solicited to follow Him.

The Twelve had a MISSION to “introduce” the Jewish Messiah TO the Tribes of Israel.

The Twelve’s MISSION, teaching, preaching, was not secret, but rather openly revealed, for Jews, Gentiles, Clerics, Kings, Military…ie the political, religious and people at large to all be aware and I would surmise was a “Hot Topic” of interest, curiosity, wonderment among the people at large regarding THEIR MISSION, TO preach to the JEWS.

Saul (the Jew, via his mother)
Paul (the Gentile, Roman citizen, via his dad)
Was commissioned TO ….
(Not repeat what the Twelve had already revealed Regarding Jesus’ Birth)
But Rather “INTRODUCE” Gentiles, Kings, (and any Jews not having heard)…HOW THEY ALSO COULD BE INCLUDED in the Salvation OFFERED First to the Jews, was ALSO, by, through, of Jesus, OFFERED TO the Gentiles and Kings…

It is not mysterious regarding the Nature of man, to be more attentive, to listen, to hear, to consider, what a speaker has to say….
WHEN the listener has a viable connection to the speaker.

Not a mystery…God from the very beginning revealed His Authority to DIVIDE…
Time, Genders, Species, Himself…(etc.)
Categorically landing on …
Good/Evil, acceptable/unacceptable, with/without Him.

Paul’s MISSION was not to Convince Gentiles of Jesus’ existence, but rather, HOW Gentiles could become MADE “included” in the Jewish Gods OFFERING, to surpass the DIVISION between Jews and Gentiles, into an ever lasting Life with the Almighty Lord God of ALL people.
Acts 9:
[15] But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Gal 4:
[4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
[5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Gal 4:
[19] My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

No need to wonder WHAT God decided WHAT Paul’s mission would be.


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Why is there so little historical record of Jesus?

Actually, there is a great deal of history regarding Jesus…

Consider how a dad Knowing his own child’s history, and teaching his child LITTLE by LITTLE…it is years of passage of time, before the child becomes aware of his own history and wise in his choices, based on the years of knowledge he has gained, and understanding by what he does with his gained knowledge.

All people from the beginning, AND forward as babes are born…learn little by little, bit by bit…..About Everything…including God.

IF you believe…
* the Word of God came forth out of Gods mouth.
* God gave His Word a Name;
* God prepared a Body for His Word, “for when His Word would be sent to Earth, face to face with mankind:;

Does WHEN you learn that knowledge…
Have ANY affect ON WHAT and WHEN God acts?

Here is JESUS, in the beginning….YET His Name was not YET revealed.

* Gen 1:
[3] And God said , Let there be light: and there was light.

* Gen 18:
[1] And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
[2] And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he (Abraham) saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
[3] And (Abraham) said, My Lord,if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

* Judg 13:
[18] And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?

Deut 29:
[29] The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Isaiah 55:
[11] So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

The “thing” to which God sent His word, was years later revealed, according to Gods timeframe, and to WHOM, according to Gods timeframe

Luke 1:
[35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee IS NOT YET…BUT….shall be called the Son of God.

Gods word was not Created, rather Reveals from the beginning of mankind.

Hebrews, Tribes of Israel were to Teach the World of Gods Word…
Eh, some men succeed, some men fail…and God took it upon Himself to Foster His OWN WILL.

Phil 2:
[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Do human men ever “take upon themselves” the likeness as “their child” to humbly teach their children?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[O'Darby]

Actually, there is a great deal of history regarding Jesus…

Consider how a dad Knowing his own child’s history, and teaching his child LITTLE by LITTLE…it is years of passage of time, before the child becomes aware of his own history and wise in his choices, based on the years of knowledge he has gained, and understanding by what he does with his gained knowledge.

All people from the beginning, AND forward as babes are born…learn little by little, bit by bit…..About Everything…including God.

IF you believe…
* the Word of God came forth out of Gods mouth.
* God gave His Word a Name;
* God prepared a Body for His Word, “for when His Word would be sent to Earth, face to face with mankind:;

Does WHEN you learn that knowledge…
Have ANY affect ON WHAT and WHEN God acts?

Here is JESUS, in the beginning….YET His Name was not YET revealed.

* Gen 1:
[3] And God said , Let there be light: and there was light.

* Gen 18:
[1] And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
[2] And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he (Abraham) saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
[3] And (Abraham) said, My Lord,/B]if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

* Judg 13:
[18] And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?

Deut 29:
[29] The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Isaiah 55:
[11] So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

The “thing” to which God sent His word, was years later revealed, according to Gods timeframe, and to WHOM, according to Gods timeframe

Luke 1:
[35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee IS NOT YET…BUT….shall be called the Son of God.

Gods word was not Created, rather Reveals from the beginning of mankind.

Hebrews, Tribes of Israel were to Teach the World of Gods Word…
Eh, some men succeed, some men fail…and God took it upon Himself to Foster His OWN WILL.

Phil 2:
[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Do human men ever “take upon themselves” the likeness as “their child” to humbly teach their children?

Glory to God,
Taken

I am talking about the contemporary historical record. For someone whose ministry theoretically drew vast crowds, had the Jewish authorities in an uproar and ended with spectacular events in Jerusalem, Jesus is almost entirely absent from the contemporary historical record. One plausible conclusion, which isn't by any means "anti-Jesus" or "anti-faith," is simply that He and His ministry were considerably more obscure than the Gospels suggest and that the events have been exaggerated for theological purposes.

Josephus (c. 37-c,100 AD), who was right in the middle of all this and wrote the history of the Jews, just barely acknowledges the existence of Jesus. (A reference to Jesus as the Messiah and more than a mere mortal, the Testimonium Flavianum, is accepted by all scholars as a spurious Christian addition: Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia.) Josephus actually devotes more discussion to the false messiahs who were circulating at the time of Jesus and immediately thereafter: PSEUDO-MESSIAHS - JewishEncyclopedia.com.

Again, to acknowledge the absence of a contemporary historical record isn't "anti-Jesus" or "anti-faith." It's merely to acknowledge a mystery that demands a rational explanation. One such explanation - the only one that occurs to me - is that Jesus and His ministry were more obscure than the Gospels suggest. We might even view it as evidence of the reality of Christianity that this obscure ministry, operating in the midst of other would-be messiahs, was the one that survived and grew.

 

[Taken]

I am talking about the contemporary historical record. For someone whose ministry theoretically drew vast crowds, had the Jewish authorities in an uproar and ended with spectacular events in Jerusalem, Jesus is almost entirely absent from the contemporary historical record. One plausible conclusion, which isn't by any means "anti-Jesus" or "anti-faith," is simply that He and His ministry were considerably more obscure than the Gospels suggest and that the events have been exaggerated for theological purposes.

Josephus (c. 37-c,100 AD), who was right in the middle of all this and wrote the history of the Jews, just barely acknowledges the existence of Jesus. (A reference to Jesus as the Messiah and more than a mere mortal, the Testimonium Flavianum, is accepted by all scholars as a spurious Christian addition: Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia.) Josephus actually devotes more discussion to the false messiahs who were circulating at the time of Jesus and immediately thereafter: PSEUDO-MESSIAHS - JewishEncyclopedia.com.

Again, to acknowledge the absence of a contemporary historical record isn't "anti-Jesus" or "anti-faith." It's merely to acknowledge a mystery that demands a rational explanation. One such explanation - the only one that occurs to me - is that Jesus and His ministry were more obscure than the Gospels suggest. We might even view it as evidence of the reality of Christianity that this obscure ministry, operating in the midst of other would-be messiahs, was the one that survived and grew.

I give the fullness of Gods Order and Way accredited alone unto God.

For any point in time…ancient, historical, modern…I lend very little interest or credence to what men think Gods Order and Way shoulda, coulda, woulda….been established.

As were the Twelve, so also was Paul given direction in Gods Order and Way to preach Gods Word.

I simply do not challenge what God Counseled within Himself, Gen 1: [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

to establish Order and Way, that mankind can take at face value or reject it…wonder…but not “change” it.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Mr E]

I really don't think anything I say here is "unorthodox," but I'm posting here so as not to upset those to whom any sort of "thinking out loud" is disturbing if not blasphemous.

I haven't got past this first line yet, but had to comment. This is the thinker's safe zone. Voted least likely to ruffle preened forum feathers.

It's not the out loud part that bothers some folks, but the thinking part.

I look forward to your musings as always.

 

[Mr E]

Odd - no one is troubled or even intrigued by such issues? Well, I guess it must be nice to be "that" sort of believer. To me, these are pretty large and obvious clues that "something was going on" that we don't grasp. In a way, the fact that these (to me) screaming mysteries are mostly right there in the NT is a mystery in its own right. Oh, well, YMMV.

Are you patient enough to let me tackle one by one? These are great questions, each worthy of response. I love a good mystery.

 

[O'Darby]

Are you patient enough to let me tackle one by one? These are great questions, each worthy of response. I love a good mystery.

Go for it! As you may recall, on the forum where we were both banned without notice on the same day, I had started posting EVERYTHING I wrote in the Unorthodox section because there was literally NOTHING I could say that wasn't Unorthodox by their standards. Alas, even THAT didn't save me, and off I went to Bannedville because posters with names like TooHoly4U couldn't handle thinking at all!

 

[Mr E]

Great thread--- reading through it, I was surprised to see it's almost a month old and went a few weeks with little comment. I seldom dive into a conversation that folks are having without reading the whole thread from the beginning. Because of this wanting to know what's been said and who said it- I almost never submerge myself in long threads as a late-comer, because of the effort it would take to get up to speed.

As for your questions-- each ending in "Rather odd, eh?" (I didn't know you speak Canadian!).

I'm from the Heiser school that teaches-- "If it's weird, it's important." So let's chat about it!

Why does Paul seem completely unaware of the historical Jesus? Paul's epistles are the earliest NT writings. Scholars agree that precursors to the Gospels were circulating in oral tradition, and even as written collections of Jesus' sayings (such as the famous Q), at any early date. Yet Paul seems completely unaware of Jesus' virgin birth, parables, sayings or deeds. He makes no use of them or references to them at all – only the Resurrection. Rather odd, eh?

The simple reason is--- He never met him. And at the time, while Paul was writing his letters, there were no books or memoirs yet written detailing the Jesus biography. He had no source material and had never personally met Jesus in the flesh. His knowledge and experience with Christ was entirely after-the-fact (death and resurrection) and in spirit.

Why is there so little historical record of Jesus? Sure, He was an obscure figure before His ministry began, but then we're told He attracted vast crowds, performed startling miracles, became of great concern to the Jewish authorities and stirred a considerable controversy by His Resurrection. Yet He is all but invisible in Jewish and Roman historical documents. Rather odd, eh?

This is a great question. It's a bit like asking why there aren't more positive stories about Donald Trump on the news, or at whitehouse.gov--- history is written by the winners-- even if they are complete losers. Josephus, as a source was a Jewish turn-coat who ended up in the employ of the Roman Imperials-- hardly a writer one would expect to offer a favorable review and representation of any so-called Messiah that he didn't himself recognize and that his bosses wanted rid of.

And I surmise that over time-- any existent material could be scrubbed-- gathered, collected, confiscated, burned. It brings to mind also the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.... ever wonder why it took fifty years for the Jewish keepers of the scroll material to release a single text. And so many parts missing...... A twisted librarian can determine what stays and what disappears (ahem-- see Vatican, or your local primary school).

I still await a day, where someone digs something up in or around Jerusalem or Galillee. Don't count on it passing through the hands of Jewish scholars before we get to see it, or we probably won't get to see it at all.

For that matter, why did Jesus not appear more openly after His Resurrection? OK, sending disciples into all the world may have been the divine plan, but surely for the Resurrected Jesus to appear openly to the Jewish and Roman authorities would have jump-started things. Rather odd, eh?

This one involves a bit of a twist. If there's something strange in your neighborhood-- Who ya gonna call?

Tender topic-- but it's not like he was flesh and blood doing a walk about town, meeting and greeting folks. People encountered Christ in a personal way-- like Paul did and/or like those two on the road to Emmaus did, or the women at the tomb. This requires a bit of a deeper look, but I don't want to distract from the flow of your thread with a rabbit trail... As to why he didn't? I would say it has something to do with public health and safety. What would those Roman authorities have done?

 

[O'Darby]

Great thread--- reading through it, I was surprised to see it's almost a month old and went a few weeks with little comment. I seldom dive into a conversation that folks are having without reading the whole thread from the beginning. Because of this wanting to know what's been said and who said it- I almost never submerge myself in long threads as a late-comer, because of the effort it would take to get up to speed.

As for your questions-- each ending in "Rather odd, eh?" (I didn't know you speak Canadian!).

I'm from the Heiser school that teaches-- "If it's weird, it's important." So let's chat about it!



The simple reason is--- He never met him. And at the time, while Paul was writing his letters, there were no books or memoirs yet written detailing the Jesus biography. He had no source material and had never personally met Jesus in the flesh. His knowledge and experience with Christ was entirely after-the-fact (death and resurrection) and in spirit.



This is a great question. It's a bit like asking why there aren't more positive stories about Donald Trump on the news, or at whitehouse.gov--- history is written by the winners-- even if they are complete losers. Josephus, as a source was a Jewish turn-coat who ended up in the employ of the Roman Imperials-- hardly a writer one would expect to offer a favorable review and representation of any so-called Messiah that he didn't himself recognize and that his bosses wanted rid of.

And I surmise that over time-- any existent material could be scrubbed-- gathered, collected, confiscated, burned. It brings to mind also the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.... ever wonder why it took fifty years for the Jewish keepers of the scroll material to release a single text. And so many parts missing...... A twisted librarian can determine what stays and what disappears (ahem-- see Vatican, or your local primary school).

I still await a day, where someone digs something up in or around Jerusalem or Galillee. Don't count on it passing through the hands of Jewish scholars before we get to see it, or we probably won't get to see it at all.



This one involves a bit of a twist. If there's something strange in your neighborhood-- Who ya gonna call?

Tender topic-- but it's not like he was flesh and blood doing a walk about town, meeting and greeting folks. People encountered Christ in a personal way-- like Paul did and/or like those two on the road to Emmaus did, or the women at the tomb. This requires a bit of a deeper look, but I don't want to distract from the flow of your thread with a rabbit trail... As to why he didn't? I would say it has something to do with public health and safety. What would those Roman authorities have done?

It's quite tempting to ask, "Hey, why did Jesus appear when He did and not in 1950 or 2020, when He, His miracles, His Resurrection and the whole ball of wax could have been covered live for all the world to see and documented for future generations?" I have to believe this was the whole point. Just as He was the unlikeliest of Messiahs - nothing like the Jews were expecting - the circumstances of His ministry were just about the least likely to survive and transform the world. It all makes an almost perfect "counterinuitive sense," what Tertullian meant by "I believe because it is absurd." Everyone since has been required to believe on faith, without all the news reports, films and DVDs that seemingly would have been helpful. "“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 

[Mr E]

What was the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus? Were they in any sense "in cahoots"? We're told that John immediately recognized Jesus as the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world, but later John sent disciples to ask if Jesus was the one they were to expect or if another would be coming. What's that all about?

oooh. Nobody is going to like this hot take. They were cousins of some kind and it was a rural area. Pretty hard sell to say that they weren't at least aware or familiar with each other.... familial and all. So Jesus would have had at least an awareness of his weird cousin who dressed strange and ate bugs. People talk.

As for John's recognition of Jesus- he dreamed of someone coming and of this dove hovering and of this one who was to be the lamb... all this in spirit, where these things have spiritual significance, so then when Jesus approaches-- maybe they haven't seen each other for many years, or maybe because the moment was right-- but John says-- this one--- is the one I saw, and of whom God said....

If you want to better understand the possible relationship take some time and consider the relationship between Elijah and Elisha. It's not exactly a pointless rabbit trail. There's actually a white rabbit with a pocket watch and a deep hole at the end of it. If Jesus himself recognized as Elijah---- who is Elisha in the associative mechanism Jesus evokes?

Why wasn't Jesus' family fully on board with His ministry? If the birth accounts in Matthew and Luke are true, wouldn't His family have been expecting great things as soon as He could talk? Why were they puzzled when He went missing and they found Him in the temple at age 12? Why did they think He had "gone out of His mind" when His ministry commenced? Something doesn't add up, does it?

This is a good one too! Also with a simple answer that is so obvious it's hard to accept.

They didn't accept the idea of him being the long-awaited and anticipated Messiah figure-- because they knew him.

It was impossible. They had grown up with him, knew him better than anyone else could-- his flaws and imperfections, his character, his history, his secrets..... everything. The ones who knew him best couldn't accept it, because the whole idea was completely unacceptable.

Then, something changed.

 

[Mr E]

It's quite tempting to ask, "Hey, why did Jesus appear when He did and not in 1950 or 2020, when He, His miracles, His Resurrection and the whole ball of wax could have been covered live for all the world to see and documented for future generations?" I have to believe this was the whole point. Just as He was the unlikeliest of Messiahs - nothing like the Jews were expecting - the circumstances of His ministry were just about the least likely to survive and transform the world. It all makes an almost perfect "counterinuitive sense," what Tertullian meant by "I believe because it is absurd." Everyone since has been required to believe on faith, without all the news reports, films and DVDs that seemingly would have been helpful. "“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Who's to say he won't? And when he does those who say they know best will reject him, mock and throw stones, just as those who were said to be awaiting him 2000 years ago did, not recognizing. In his revelation he tells us what it will be like-- and in this coming, as before two will appear. But this time every eye will see.... and every camera stream live as their corpses lie openly in the streets for three and a half days.

It'll probably make the news.

 

[Mr E]

And, of course, what about those Missing Years? Do we seriously think Jesus just emerged from a cocoon at age 30 with the sort of wisdom He showed? He'd been undercover as a mere carpenter or stone mason and one day just took off the mask and became the Son of God? Any number of scholars have noted the similarity between Jesus' teachings and sayings and those of the Eastern religions, to the extent of suggesting He must have had some training. See, for example, Quest for the Kingdom: The Secret Teachings of Jesus in the Light of Yogic Mysticism by Professor John M. Newman, who was with Army Intelligence and the National Security Agency and is certainly not a nutcase. This may seem far-fetched, but the notion that Jesus may have been part of an esoteric community like the Essenes rather than a mere carpenter is not so far-fetched. Anyway, the complete silence of the NT (and, as far as I know, the early Church Fathers) about Jesus' Missing Years is certainly a puzzle.

I have two streams of thought here. The easy road says that there is nothing to report. He was just a carpenter, and the son of a carpenter doing carpentry. Maybe he got a job elsewhere-- you go where the work is. But I do recognize that it seems he was off-camera for his young adult life, from the age of 12 to about 30. Eighteen years unaccounted. I don't personally think that he was lunch-bucket Jesus, out of town on business.

There's a pretty good case to be made that John (the baptizer-bug eater) was an Essene and that Mary and Joseph too, were a part of the Essene community-- raising their family in the Essene way. Josephus records that the Essene community was large and everywhere, not confined solely to the hills of Qumran, but in the cities including Jerusalem. I liken it to the Hutterite or Mennonite or Amish communities that are no longer only colonies, but part of the communities in a wider sense. So I speculate- and don't mind saying it's speculation-- but Jesus was likely raised and educated as part of this tradition-- very strict and formal.... and maybe at some point he rebelled and left. Wild speculation! Maybe he went off to Vegas (Egypt) for a dozen years..... went to prison........ got a face tattoo. We simply don't know.

Maybe his story of the prodigal has a basis in fact.

What about the 500 witnesses to Jesus' Resurrection? 1st Corinthians is believed to have been written circa 51-53 AD, earlier than any of the Gospels. Paul says many of the 500 witnesses were still alive, which supports an early date. Yet this fabulous evidence didn't make it into ANY of the Gospels. Where did Paul get this information? Since all the Gospels, and certainly the Synoptics, were circulating in oral form at an early date, why do they seem ignorant of the appearance to the 500? Again: weird.

But it is referenced. 1 Cor 15 is referring directly to the weird account recorded in Matthew 27. Read the latter first and the former later.


Terrific thread-- I should have given a greater effort, but alas-- the gym is calling me and my wife is watching.

 

[Lambano]

(A reference to Jesus as the Messiah and more than a mere mortal, the Testimonium Flavianum, is accepted by all scholars as a spurious Christian addition: Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia.)

Because I AM interested in the subject, I've read a couple of books on the "Historical Jesus" - Jesus: The Evidence by Ian Wilson, and A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John R. Meier. I couldn't bring myself to read volumes 2-4 of the latter.

As the Wikipedia article points out (and yes, I read it), most scholars now think the Testimonium Flavianum contains a core from the authentic writings of Josephus that was modified by Christian interpolators. An Arabic version was found in 1970 contains a version of the Testimonium without the Christian fluff.

There are also mentions of Jesus in the writings of Tacitus, and Suetonius. And there are also some references to Jesus in the Talmud, most notably:

It is taught: On Passover Eve, they hanged Yeshu. And a crier went out before him (for) forty days, (proclaiming): "Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, and enticed and lead Israel astray.

 

[Mr E]

Because I AM interested in the subject, I've read a couple of books on the "Historical Jesus" - Jesus: The Evidence by Ian Wilson, and A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John R. Meier. I couldn't bring myself to read volumes 2-4 of the latter.

As the Wikipedia article points out (and yes, I read it), most scholars now think the Testimonium Flavianum contains a core from the authentic writings of Josephus that was modified by Christian interpolators. An Arabic version was found in 1970 contains a version of the Testimonium without the Christian fluff.

There are also mentions of Jesus in the writings of Tacitus, and Suetonius. And there are also some references to Jesus in the Talmud, most notably:

The Talmud accounts were written much later-- 3rd Century? Most probably as a polemic (poke in the eye) Jewish response to the growing 'Christian' sects-- (the original Jesus Freaks movement that was equally gnostic in as much as some were Jewish).

As such-- is it trustworthy?

 

[O'Darby]

Because I AM interested in the subject, I've read a couple of books on the "Historical Jesus" - Jesus: The Evidence by Ian Wilson, and A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John R. Meier. I couldn't bring myself to read volumes 2-4 of the latter.

As the Wikipedia article points out (and yes, I read it), most scholars now think the Testimonium Flavianum contains a core from the authentic writings of Josephus that was modified by Christian interpolators. An Arabic version was found in 1970 contains a version of the Testimonium without the Christian fluff.

There are also mentions of Jesus in the writings of Tacitus, and Suetonius. And there are also some references to Jesus in the Talmud, most notably:

By pure happenstance, I was looking yesterday to see if Meier's work was available on Kindle. Alas, it isn't. Many of the "historical Jesus" books are as agenda-driven as the "Jesus of faith" ones!

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Why does Paul seem completely unaware of the historical Jesus?

good questions. Ones I don’t really have answers to that would take away your questions. But I do want to share a few opinions that may help. You asked “why does Paul seem completely unaware of the historical Jesus?” In my opinion it’s Saul who was unaware knowing the scriptures, knowing parables but not seeing Christ in them. Paul says he learned, not taught of man but was taught of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Personally I’d don’t think Paul leaves out the parables Jesus Presented but they are there in Paul’s writings; often the backbone of 2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
For example concerning virgins…or the sower and the seed:
1 Corinthians 15:36-45 Thou fool, that which thou sow is not quickened, except it die: [37] And that which you sow, you sow not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: [38] But God gives it a body as it has pleased him, and to every seed his own body. [39] All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. [40] There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. [41] There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. [42] So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: [43] It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: [44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. [45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Why is there so little historical record of Jesus?

I don’t know but consider: John 21:24-25 This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. [25] Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
What does that even mean? Consider there are those things written in “books”. And there is that written on the hearts. Which is more “historical”? I don’t know. I guess it depends on who the writer is.

For that matter, why did Jesus not appear more openly after His Resurrection?

Assuming he hasn’t. Did Christ appear in flesh to Paul? I don’t think so but by Revelation in the Spirit of God. but in reading it, it sounds as if Jesus Christ stood literally right next to Paul. Appearing or manifesting.

How many has He openly revealed Himself to by way of the Revelation of Jesus Christ since His Resurrection?

What was the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus?

A pivotal moment (Imo) where Jesus Christ would show it was NOT about the literal signs of setting those in prison free or He would have went to John the Baptist. But something far Greater was coming …John the Baptist Story sounds like he received back terrible news from Christ. “Sorry brother. I’m too busy giving sight to the blind and setting the captive free. John I’m not coming to let you out.” Instead “Go tell John, I AM HIM spoken of and raise the dead.” Waiting in prison on the brink of death …that would be good news. On your death bed…to hear word “fear not. For I have overcome death!”

Why wasn't Jesus' family fully on board with His ministry?

Why was His disciples not fully on board with His ministry?

Why did anyone take Jesus seriously?

Why do you? Out of all the craziness in the world…out of all the fairy tales and fables and pretenders and out of everything you have read and heard ….why do you take Jesus seriously? I don’t mean that to be sarcastic. I’m asking because I ask myself the same question.

And, of course, what about those Missing Years?

We might not want to know.
Hebrews 5:8 - Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Personally I don’t think the Son needed so much to go off to be taught of all kinds of religions but was taught of “the things which he suffered”.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Why is there so little historical record of Jesus

The Bible is sufficient, it is the most copied and reliable book of antiquity, an historical account of some of what Jesus did and said.
"And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen." John 21:25

Why does Paul seem completely unaware of the historical Jesus?

Why would you think that? Jesus taught Paul for three years. Jesus prepared him for His ministry, just not face to face as the others experienced. Being filled with the Holy Spirit, he was taught, guided, empowered, sent on a mission, lacking nothing, with precise orders, a plan designed by God.
I think your doubts and the apparent mysteries you bring up may come from a lack of realization that the Bible is God's word, not Paul's or any other prophet's. It was not contrived by any of them. GOD told them exactly what to write. There was no need for Paul to repeat what was in the four Gospels, or what anyone else wrote in detail. Principles were repeated. "All scripture is God breathed." It flows, supports itself and is complete. There is nothing missing that you may think.
The historical Jesus is the Creator. He is God, the Messiah, the Savior, spoken of all through the Old Testament. This was a key evangelical approach to show from Scripture that Jesus was the one prophesied about since the beginning.

For that matter, why did Jesus not appear more openly after His Resurrection? OK, sending

He appeared about 10 different times, was witnessed by those who knew Him and was scene ascending into heaven by 500 witnesses. Our God would not appear _ in His glorified state _ to the evil, wicked. Why? They were already judged, no need to change their minds, they were condemned.
Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen Him.

What was the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus?

John served his purpose, a great prophet who prepared the way and introduced the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world. John was probably confused as to why he was in prison, which led to his questions ... "Are you the one or should we be waiting for someone else?" From his introduction of Christ (accompanied by the miraculous vision of the Holy Spirt descending on Christ after his baptism and the Father's voice from Heaven) to a disparaged and disillusioned prisoner in prison. I think it was a cry out for help. "Hey, did you forget about me? Can't you or aren't you going to do something?" So John was confused, probably disappointed, especially when he got his head chopped off!
As many others might have expected, Jesus did not come to take over, defeat His enemies and be King the first time around.

Why wasn't Jesus' family fully on board with His ministry?

Mary was and Jude and James were after they realized who he really was. Jesus' siblings were likely brought up and treated as equals. The idea of Him being the Son of God was kept a secret for all their protection. Jesus, God in the flesh, remained incognito until his time. Likely his parents did not discuss his divine purpose with anyone, especially since as an infant, Herod wanted to kill him. They had to escape and then return after a few years when it was safe. His normal life as a carpenter and regular guy in town was why when He visited them, they did not receive Him as the Messiah and Savior. A prophet is never received well in his home t

Why did anyone take Jesus seriously?

By witnessing the miracles He performed, the words that came out of His mouth, the wisdom and prophetic knowledge He had that only God could know, predicting and raising Himself from the dead. He knew people before they actualĺy met and knew and prepared for every circumstance on every day during His ministry.

And, of course, what about those Missing Years

They were not important, apparently that one incident when he was twelve showed us he was knowledgeable beyond his years and had the Rabbis impressed ... "About my Father's business". I don't think He did much grand standing in every Synagogue, like that. I think He kept a low profile.

 

[Peterlag]

I really don't think anything I say here is "unorthodox," but I'm posting here so as not to upset those to whom any sort of "thinking out loud" is disturbing if not blasphemous.

Those scholars who posit a completely mythical (invented) Jesus who never existed at all have an uphill battle. (Richard C. Carrier and Robert M. Price are two of the leading "Jesus myth" scholars.) There is enough history and historical references to make this untenable to most scholars, even those who are firmly non-Christian.

However, there are some genuine mysteries that I find fascinating:

Why does Paul seem completely unaware of the historical Jesus? Paul's epistles are the earliest NT writings. Scholars agree that precursors to the Gospels were circulating in oral tradition, and even as written collections of Jesus' sayings (such as the famous Q), at any early date. Yet Paul seems completely unaware of Jesus' virgin birth, parables, sayings or deeds. He makes no use of them or references to them at all – only the Resurrection. Rather odd, eh?

Why is there so little historical record of Jesus? Sure, He was an obscure figure before His ministry began, but then we're told He attracted vast crowds, performed startling miracles, became of great concern to the Jewish authorities and stirred a considerable controversy by His Resurrection. Yet He is all but invisible in Jewish and Roman historical documents. Rather odd, eh?

For that matter, why did Jesus not appear more openly after His Resurrection? OK, sending disciples into all the world may have been the divine plan, but surely for the Resurrected Jesus to appear openly to the Jewish and Roman authorities would have jump-started things. Rather odd, eh?

What was the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus? Were they in any sense "in cahoots"? We're told that John immediately recognized Jesus as the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world, but later John sent disciples to ask if Jesus was the one they were to expect or if another would be coming. What's that all about?

Why wasn't Jesus' family fully on board with His ministry? If the birth accounts in Matthew and Luke are true, wouldn't His family have been expecting great things as soon as He could talk? Why were they puzzled when He went missing and they found Him in the temple at age 12? Why did they think He had "gone out of His mind" when His ministry commenced? Something doesn't add up, does it?

Why did anyone take Jesus seriously? Israel is small – the whole country is smaller than Maricopa County, Arizona. By the time Jesus began His ministry at age 30, at least a fair number of people surely would have known Him as just a local guy – a carpenter or stone mason or whatever you think He was. Moreover, Messiah claimants were common shortly before and at the same time as Jesus – Josephus identifies at least a dozen. Miracle-workers, bogus or otherwise, were not uncommon. Why did anyone take Jesus seriously?

And, of course, what about those Missing Years? Do we seriously think Jesus just emerged from a cocoon at age 30 with the sort of wisdom He showed? He'd been undercover as a mere carpenter or stone mason and one day just took off the mask and became the Son of God? Any number of scholars have noted the similarity between Jesus' teachings and sayings and those of the Eastern religions, to the extent of suggesting He must have had some training. See, for example, Quest for the Kingdom: The Secret Teachings of Jesus in the Light of Yogic Mysticism by Professor John M. Newman, who was with Army Intelligence and the National Security Agency and is certainly not a nutcase. This may seem far-fetched, but the notion that Jesus may have been part of an esoteric community like the Essenes rather than a mere carpenter is not so far-fetched. Anyway, the complete silence of the NT (and, as far as I know, the early Church Fathers) about Jesus' Missing Years is certainly a puzzle.

Just some things to think about, if you're so inclined.

Let's deal with your first one which is...
Why does Paul seem completely unaware of the historical Jesus?

Paul is writing to the Christians telling them what they have in Christ. The gospels were written concerning Israel and have very little to almost nothing about what we have in Christ.

 

[BlessedPeace]

There are many justifiable questions with regard to Jesus.

For me I wonder how a man,one of many, executed by Rome was unique in that he resurrected and walked for 40 days in the same area where he ministered before his execution. And no one ,no one, told the Pharisees?

The Babylonian Talmud dates A.D. 500-600 and contains Rabbinical commentary. It contains references also to Jesus. However, they are highly critical and insulting.


Source:What Does The Talmud Say About Jesus And Mary?

Gittin 57a:3

Onkelos then went and raised Jesus the Nazarene from the grave through necromancy. Onkelos said to him: Who is most important in that world where you are now?...

www.sefaria.org

“Onkelos then went and raised Jesus the Nazarene from the grave through necromancy… What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Jesus himself, in the next world? Jesus said to him: He is punished with boiling excrement.”

Sotah 47a:14

One day, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya was reciting Shema when Jesus came before him. He intended to accept him on this occasion, so he signaled to him with his...

www.sefaria.org

“Jesus … went and stood up a brick and worshipped it as an idol … he caused the masses to sin … Jesus the Nazarene performed sorcery, and he incited the masses, and subverted the masses, and caused the Jewish people to sin.”

Also: Sanhedrin 107b:14


Sanhedrin 43a:20
“On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning … because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray.”


For reference, Ben Stada =Jesus. bin Pandeira is a euphemism for Jesus)
Shabbat 104b:5
“Didn’t the infamous ben Stada take magic spells out of Egypt … His mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Stada, but the one who had relations with his mother and fathered him was named Pandeira … his mother Miriam … This one strayed from her husband.”