Whether Jesus existed historically

[treestar]

People seem very certain both ways and categorically state one position or the other without backing it up with their reasons. What are those reasons?

Threads get knocked out of GD as being about religion, but I ask this as without religious considerations. Obviously if you believe Jesus is God he existed as man.

But if you don't believe Jesus is God, it is not necessary absolutely that he not have existed as a historic person. You could say he existed and yet he's not a God.

[hrmjustin]

1. I can't prove Jesus existed but I believe he was man and is God.

Blessed are they that have not seen but believe.

John 20:29

[treestar]

2. Well ok that's a position one could have too

[hrmjustin]

3. Indeed.

[NaturalHigh]

6. Same here.

[hrmjustin]

7. .

Have a good Holy Week.

[NaturalHigh]

8. You too my friend.

[yeoman6987]

52. I do too. I believe it all quite frankly.

Many don't and that is fine.

[hrmjustin]

54. Have a great Holy Week!

[yeoman6987]

67. You too! Actually can't believe it is here already!

[hrmjustin]

69. Always an emotional time.

I cry during the passion.

[Brettongarcia]

221. God blesses sinners, and those who curse you

[hrmjustin]

222. Indeed!

[Brettongarcia]

223. cf. Luke 6.28 etc.

[hrmjustin]

224. Pray for those who curse you.

I do that.

[Brettongarcia]

237. Oddly

The usual translation is "bless." Paul topspins that to be sure. But today we often bless things we do not approve, when people sneeze, say. Being blessed by God therefore is not necessarily approval.

[immoderate]

4. If he's not a god, he's not the same guy.

--imm

[treestar]

5. Disagree, he could have existed but not be a god

He could have been executed too. just not risen from the dead. Agreed there is no proof of that and it is necessarily a matter of belief.

[immoderate]

9. So there was some guy named Jesus who SAID he was a god...

but couldn't do any tricks?

--imm

[edhopper]

11. Well his name was

Yeshua, and we don't know what he said. That any of the quotes in the NT are real strains credulity.

[treestar]

14. people of that day and in fact many centuries later

wouldn't need proof the same way modern people do. It's hard to get into their heads. But they didn't have science. They'd be less likely to say hey, no one can come back from the dead. More likely to think the gods existed in a fact sort of way. They had no explanations for so much.

[pangaia]

176. Not sure what you meen by

"they didn't have science."

[still_one]

26. Actually, everything written about Jesus comes from the Apostles written after his death,

so technically it is second hand information.

[pangaia]

177. As far as I know nothing in the bible

was written by the apostles. I am no expert.

[still_one]

178. I am not even Christian, but wasn't the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. authored by those folks?

[pangaia]

182. No they were not.

Whomever wrote the gospels just used their names. They were written something like 60-150 years later.

[still_one]

183. Then that makes them even more subject to error, an is more than just second hand information

[okasha]

189. Actually,

Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 08:20 PM - Edit history (1)

those books circulated anonymously for decades before they were attributed to MMLJ.

[edhopper]

190. is that one too many Ms

or is there a 5th book?

[okasha]

193. It was indeed.

Thank you! I've corrected it.

[edhopper]

194. I thought you might have found

The lost gospel of Mervin.

[pangaia]

192. Uh huh.

Books?

[okasha]

195. Yes, books. Those things you read.

Your problem is?

[Starboard Tack]

158. Where do you get the idea that he said he was a god?

And what °tricks° did he perform? I imagine you refer to the so-called miracles ascribed to him in the gospels. I seriously doubt that Jesus would have agreed with such characterizations.
I have no doubt that Jesus believed in the existence of God, as did most of his contemporaries, but I do not recall him claiming to be God.

[immoderate]

166. You mean he was the same as everybody else who could walk on water?

--imm

[Starboard Tack]

174. What makes you think that he or anyone can or could walk on water?

I don't think too many people share your belief that he literally walked on water. Humans tend to glorify their heroes by ascribing fantastic powers and feats to them. Some think that Reagan ended the Cold War and brought down the Soviet Union.
Come down to Mexico and I'll introduce you to lots of fisherman named Jesus. You may think they can walk on water, but in reality they just know where the rocks are.

[edhopper]

184. I think you underestimate

how many Christians believe he performed all the miracles portrayed in the Bible.

[Starboard Tack]

185. Not really. I know many take the miracles literally

And for the most part, they are harmless. People have always been impressed by those who seem to know more than they do, thinking their "special" knowledge is magical. Makes for a good story.

[edhopper]

187. okay

Your previous post wasn't clear to me.

[edhopper]

167. We really can't be sure of anything

From the fictionalized account of whoever he was told later by people who thought he was the Son of God. And rewritten many times over.

[Starboard Tack]

175. Exactly!

All we know for sure is that a bunch of guys wrote similar stories about Jesus long after he was supposed to have lived and that the Romans eventually bought into it and switched from pantheism to monotheism, thus bringing Europe into the Abrahamic fold.

[stone space]

15. Hmmmm...not sure I agree with that.

If he's not a god, he's not the same guy.

Imagine a sci-fi plot where somebody where somebody who is actually alive today and whose name we would all recognize becomes revered as a God at some point in the far future.

I'd be inclined to say that it's the same guy, even if some of the details get altered thru the centuries.

People change over time. It doesn't mean that they are different people.

Just look at how MLK has mellowed out over the last few decades since his assassination.

This one-time militant has since come out against Affirmative Action, come out in favor of the War in Afghanistan, and joined the Republican Party.

He's become a much more respectable establishment figure since then, as is befitting anybody with a Federal Holiday named after him.



But he's still the same guy, isn't he?

[immoderate]

42. Or it could be an example of EUHEMERISM.

Euhemerism is a process whereby initial mythological accounts come to be treated as real historical events or historical personages; later accounts were shaped, exaggerated or altered by retelling and traditional mores. It was named for its creator Euhemerus. In more recent literature of myth, such as in Bulfinch's Mythology, Euhemerism is called the "historical interpretation" of mythology.[1] Euhemerus was not the first to attempt to rationalize mythology and history, as euhemeristic views are found in earlier writers, including Xenophanes, Herodotus, Hecataeus of Abdera and Ephorus.[2][3] However, Euhemerus is credited as considering history in his times to be mythology in disguise.[4]

If he was not the son of god, born to a virgin, healer of the sick, walker on water, feeder of the multitudes, and part time zombie, then what's his gig?

--imm

[Starboard Tack]

163. Ah, so now you say he was not a god, but the son of God

I seriously doubt he claimed to be that, either, or if he did, then no more than anyone else. As a believer in a God-creator,
I am sure he saw all creatures as the children of God, including himself. Not such a difficult idea to get behind if one believes in creation.
All the rest is second, third or whatever hand story telling and has nothing whatsoever to do with his °gig°.

[okasha]

188. In the three synoptic gospels,

Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man and at the end of his ministry, allowed others to acclaim him as the Son of David. It's John's gospel that attributes divinity to him.

But I'm sure you're right that he considered all living creatures children of God.

[struggle4progress]

217. I think that in all four gospels, Jesus calls himself "son of man"

"Son of god" seems to be an ancient phrase denoting rulers

So Cambyses II ruled under the throne name “Offspring of Re,” Darius I under “Likeness of Re,” various Ptolemies under "Heir of the God that Saves," Twosret under “Daughter of Re," and so on.

We have (for example) Genesis 6 -- ... When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose ... The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart ... -- where the "sons of God" refers to those who have the power to take whatever women they like as trophies

Divi filius is a Latin phrase meaning "son of god", and was a title much used by the adopted son of Julius Caesar, his great-nephew Octavian, the future Emperor Augustus

[Leontius]

219. I think Matthew 16 verses 15 thru 20

makes the question of whether or not Jesus calls himself Son of man or Son of God a rather empty debate.

[struggle4progress]

225. Various appellations occur: "son of man," "son of David," "son of God." But in the gospels

"son of man" is most frequent by far, and I think it only occurs there as self-description of Jesus.

The "son of God" language seems never to be used directly by Jesus but occurs in the mouths of others

In Matthew, for example

Matthew 4:3: If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become bread.
Matthew 4:6: If you are the Son of God, jump off!
Matthew 8:29: What do you want with us, you Son of God? Have you come to torment us?
Matthew 14:33: You are surely the son of God.
Matthew 16:16: You are the the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Matthew 26:63: I demand you tell us whether you are the Christ, the son of the living God
Matthew 27:40: If you are the son of God, come down from the cross.

Understanding "son of God," as a designation of the emperor, casts a particular light on the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans, since the claim to be "son of God" then represents a subversion against Roman authority. This view makes sense of such passages as

Matthew 27:11 The governor asked him, Are you the king of the Jews?
Matthew 27:29 They mocked him, saying, Hail! King of the Jews!
Matthew 27:37 And above his head they set the accusation, Here is Jesus, King of the Jews.

[notadmblnd]

30. Why would you say that?

those that wrote about him decades after his demise surely could have embellished his life and deeds. Don't forget, those writers had an agenda- they were creating a new religion.

I think a better question to ask is- if Jesus were alive today, would he call himself a Jew or a Christian?

[edhopper]

34. Calling himself a Christian

would be pretty arrogant.

[notadmblnd]

40. Indeed.

[Starboard Tack]

164. It would be on a par with God saying he was religious

Man is the only creator because creation is a human concept

[edhopper]

165. God isn't religious

I mean who would he pray to?

[stone space]

171. This reminds me of the barber...

...who shaves everybody in the village who doesn't shave themselves.

[LiberalAndProud]

100. If "Christian" means follower of Christ, I doubt that he'd call himself that.

Did he ever even refer to himself as Christ? I don't think so.

[edhopper]

10. I don't think there is any

verifiable source that stories in the NT are accurate to events (the whole childhood tales can be linked to other myths and those events are problematic, when put along actual historic events.)
And of course the sources of the NT, written decades after his "death" are a question. What were Gospel's sources? (besides each other? What about the other gospels that were thrown out? Was there a Q document?)

I do think it is all based on a real man, or men who preached in Judea at that time. But other than that nothing is certain.

And I absolutely do not think any of the supernatural, miracle stuff happened.

[treestar]

12. Yeah, someone could have been executed

by the Romans in Palestine at the time. It could have caused a stir.

People in those days did not have the media we have, so what they heard could have been fact to them in a different way.

[edhopper]

16. The portrayal in popular culture

I would point to NBC's upcoming show about Jesus, where the "multitudes" come to Jesus and he is seen as the King by the population is pure BS. I doubt whoever he was, he made a small ripple at most. That no Roman or Judean writer made mention of him at the time, is evidence of how minor and inconsequential he was at the time.

[treestar]

17. Which makes it interesting how the story caught on

One does not have to believe in it to admit it did catch on.

Likewise with Mohamed. It seems like no one demands proof he existed, probably because he did not claim to be God himself. Or is there better proof of his existence as a person? I can admit he existed as a person without believing he was a prophet or anything he said or claimed. But it did catch on big time.

[edhopper]

18. I think he caught on

first because of Paul, and then Helen and Constantine. Without that conversion, I think Christianity might have stayed a minor sect.

[treestar]

19. Who was Helen and what did she do?

Paul did work up a sweat spreading the gospel. Constantine was the Roman Emperor who converted? Still, he had to be inspired to convert.

[edhopper]

21. Helen was Constantine's mother

she converted and brought her son into Christianity, who then made it the religion of the Empire. (very simplistic telling of the history)
That did more than anything to make Christianity the religion of Europe.
Just as the conquering campaign of Mohammed did in the Middle east.

BTW: It was Helen who went to Jerusalem and "discovered" all the so called historical places that Jesus was, still revered today. The archeological significance of these is highly dubious, to say the least. They are probably as real as the nails and pieces of the "true cross' she brought back.

[Leontius]

169. Constantine did not make Christianity the religion of the Empire.

[edhopper]

173. I said I was being very simplistic

a one sentence history. He didn't proclaim everyone in Europe was Christian.

But let's just say Constantine's conversion was the major factor in Europe becoming predominantly Christian.

[Viva_Daddy]

229. 3 different churches each have three different sites.

The Coptic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church EACH have their own SEPARATE site for the birth of Jesus, the "empty tomb" and the place of his crucifixion so you can take your choice. None have any historical validity.

[LiberalAndProud]

37. She discovered the one true cross.

We know this because ... miracles.

In order to determine the cross on which the Savior had been crucified, St. Macarius alternately touched the crosses to a corpse. When the dead man was touched by the True Cross of the Lord, the body came to life. Having beheld the raising of the dead, everyone was convinced that the Life-Creating Cross was found.
http://www.antiochian.org/node/18634

[edhopper]

38. Helen was one of the biggest Rubes of all time

the folks in Jerusalem saw her coming and played her like a harp.

[LiberalAndProud]

44. Do you suppose those folks lived long enough to think,

"My God, what have we done?"

[edhopper]

46. No

they were just counting the gold they took her for.

[treestar]

58. I don't think people were that cynical then

And a woman who lived in those days did not have the insight we might have.

[edhopper]

62. I think

the huckster then, were every bit as clever as they are now.

[treestar]

66. Maybe, but they didn't have the wherewithal

that Pat Robertson or Jimmy Swaggert would have.

And they lived in their time, in which their information was so limited. I think people of that time could have truly believed it, even if they were the sellers. Conspiracies to fool people on a really large scale don't seem possible for then.

[edhopper]

70. The places Helen deemed

related to Jesus were probably traditional spots. Though it was hundred of years later and considering the history of that area, it is doubtful Jesus' followers stayed and preserved them. But she was a willing dupe to anything she was told.
I find it amusing that today, people act as if these places are absolutely real without question. Jesus' tomb? Oh Please!

The relics are another matter, and pure hucksterism.

[LiberalAndProud]

105. Either a man was raised from the dead or not.

And if not (as I am convinced), Helen was duped. Intentionally and with malice aforethought.

[treestar]

129. No, people are not that black and white

and people of that era certainly might have genuinely believed it.

[leftofcool]

13. I think Jesus was just a good Essene and philosopher.

[LiberalAndProud]

20. I don't take a position on whether there was a man behind the myth.

I would like to believe there was. I like to believe that at the root of Christianity was a revolutionary grassroots political movement that was quelled when those who held power and wealth absorbed, usurped, corrupted and mythologized the message.

I have no evidence for thinking that may be the case, but I like to think it anyway.

[edhopper]

22. The fact that

there isn't a peep about it outside of the NT, shows me it was very a minor event, and hardly noticed by anyone at the time.

[LiberalAndProud]

23. I understand your point.

If there was a man, while he lived he was not noticed by the scholars and scribes of the time. But I do think it's possible that there was a communal movement among the poor and illiterate which went unremarked at the time. There is some trivia or another that I've absorbed but not documented that makes me think it's a possibility. The miracles and the resurrection I reject out of hand as actual historical events, and it is highly unlikely that the man, if he existed, was crucified by the Roman government.

[edhopper]

24. If there was a movement

I think it would have been very, very minor. Maybe the Westboro Baptist Church, without the media. A few people holding signs.

I contrast that with the popular portrayal of Jesus arriving in Jerusalem with the throngs around him. That is dubious to say the least.

I also doubt that things like the sermon on the mount every happened. I question there is any actual quote from Yeshua in the Bible.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Early Jewish christians were not part of the actual Jewish revolt against rome

The Christian religion we know today was established in the 4th century and was entangled with the Roman government - it was the opposite of a grassroots revolutionary political movement. Since becoming the state religion of Rome Christianity has been predominantly a conservative force in western civilization. In the slave economy of the Roman Empire, it was a religion that instructed slaves to obey their masters and wait for their rewards in heaven. In feudal Europe it proclaimed the feudal order to be ordained from god, and again instructed the peasants to be obedient in this life so as to be rewarded in the next. The conquest of the americas included the forced conversion of millions, and again the ideology of christianity justified the rule of the few over the many. Despite occasional outbreaks of liberation theology, from the abolitionists to the civil rights movement, to the revolutionary priests of latin america, the record is pretty consistent.

[LiberalAndProud]

41. Do you think the myth was spun from whole cloth, then?

It seems to me there must have been something there before it became the state religion. I believe it's been documented that the state did persecute Christian communities before Christianity became the religion of the state. Sometimes I wish I were less ignorant about the historical backdrop.

[Warren Stupidity]

95. You made a specific claim of a "revolutionary grassroots" ideology.

I don't think that is a claim you can justify, neither for the 1st century 'original' jewish christians, nor for the codified religion of the roman empire established in the 4th century from which what we know as christianity today is derived.

Do I think that the story is entirely myth? Yes I think that is very likely the case. Why not? So are almost all the other stories in the bible, why should we think this one is special? If the message is 'divinely inspired' what difference does it make if the story containing the message is a myth?

[LiberalAndProud]

98. You're entirely right that it's not a claim a can justify.

As for what difference it makes whether the message is a myth, surely you jest? Divinely inspired really isn't the same thing as inerrant truth.

[Warren Stupidity]

106. Most of the christians here claim that they do not take the bible literally.

That the bible is not inerrant truth. However these same christians get all itchy about the jesus myth and generally insist that some or all of the nonsense in those stories must be taken literally. I have no idea why. If the message itself is what is important, why such insistence that ridiculous claims of supernatural events, claims clearly fabricated to impress people of the ancient world, not this one, must be true?

As for the biblical literalists, the fundamentalist and evangelical christians, sure - they claim whole swaths of biblical idiocy as "that happened".

[LiberalAndProud]

108. Mmm.

If we look to the Apostle's Creed, we might find some answers. I do know one who claims Christianity (follower of Christ) but rejects virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection. One Christian, but I think he is very very rare among believers.

[Warren Stupidity]

115. I note that there is nothing supernatural about crucifixion.

The rest of the stuff is obvious invented nonsense that in any other context would be considered laughable.

It would be interesting perhaps to lay out all the voodoo nonsense in the NT, all of it, not just the big ones, and see who actually thinks all of that stuff happened. But again, the entire bible is a holy text, not just the NT, and most of the christians here claim the nonsense in the OT is myths and legends, stories that teach moral lessons, not the inerrant words of gods.

[LiberalAndProud]

117. True about the absence of the supernatural.

But examining the account of the trial and crucifixion in a historical context, he has concluded that it is very unlikely that it actually happened, at least not as the story is told in the Gospels.

[On the Road]

181. I Think There are More

I do know one who claims Christianity (follower of Christ) but rejects virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection. One Christian, but I think he is very very rare among believers.

Among mainstream Protestant churches and educated Catholics, believing in Jesus minus the mythology is probably the most common position. However, a decreasing number are likely to identify themselves as Christians in casual conversation.

[edhopper]

111. I think

most Christians here say the NT is highly accurate.

They may accept the popular differentiation of what Jesus or Paul actually said (some of the words are really, really real)

But they say the whole thing happened just like it says in the book.

[Warren Stupidity]

127. except when pressed on some of the idiotic details

like for example the thousands of zombies roaming jerusalem:


Matthew 27:51-53 New International Version (NIV)

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.


Seriously? That happened.

[edhopper]

130. I know a couple you can ask upthread.

But I do know they buy the whole nativity, barn, wisemen, the whole enchilada.

[phil89]

251. It's a myth copied

And pieced together from other myths circulating in the region. Richard carrier has done a lot of work demonstrating this.

[treestar]

51. Medieval peasants likely believed it all

And so did the medieval lords. They did not have that much science and must have really thought it was all true.

The overlords of today are worse in a way. They believe they earned their higher status by what they did. Medieval lords knew it was a role bestowed by "God" upon their birth.

[Warren Stupidity]

97. The linkage of capitalist and protestant ideologies is well established.

Christian theology can and has been bent to justify enormous disparities in wealth and power.

[haikugal]

168. To justify, accommodate and encourage enormous disparities. n/t

[cbayer]

27. If you are a christian believer, you see it one way.

Muslim believers see it another way and jewish believers another. Non-believers will have yet another perspective.

Does it matter? Something happened. There was a person or person that had a profound impact on some parts of the world.

People will spend their entire lives passionately trying to win this unwinnable debate when they could be just trying to make the world a better place.

[LiberalAndProud]

29. I haven't seen a debate here, just sharing of diverse opinions.

Which can make for interesting conversations.

[edhopper]

31. You haven't looked hard enough

We've had some big debates on historical Jesus here.

[cbayer]

35. And this may turn into yet another.

:yawn:

But for those who like it, go for it!

[edhopper]

36. I find questions about history interesting

[cbayer]

39. You and many others,

including my husband.

I have never liked it and, in fact, feel about it much as some do about religion.

The stories were always written with the biases of the times and generally by the winners. For that reason, truth is extremely elusive.

Some of my biggest head spinning episode were when I heard history that I had adopted as true retold by the other side. I went on a tour in Vicksburg MS once and heard a version of history so unlike what I knew that I was never able to reconcile it.

[edhopper]

45. If it was told by

a southern apologist, it wasn't history.

[cbayer]

47. Tell him that.

If it was told by a northern victor, is that history?

I came to realize that it was more complicated that I had been taught. I was raised in Virginia and we had "US history" every other year. It was only in my 20's that I realized that there was a bunch of stuff going on in Florida and New Mexico that I had never heard a word about. Not. a. word.

[edhopper]

48. Yes

more was going on than usually described.

But characterizing the War as a noble cause for State's Rights over the Northern aggressor. With nothing to do with slavery is just bullshit.

[cbayer]

53. This particular tour guide did not characterize the war as a noble cause

for state's right. He bluntly said that it was entirely about money and never denied that slavery was a factor.

Anyway, he gave a very interesting perspective, though not one I could support in any way.

It may be that your assumptions about the side he gave are also part of the victors writing of history.

[edhopper]

60. No, not an assumption

I heard it often enough, including at school growing up.

[cbayer]

61. Where did you grow up?

[edhopper]

63. Florida

[cbayer]

68. Ahhh, I get it.

I lived there for a year and was surrounded by confederate flags. That was an eye-opener right there.

[edhopper]

73. I was told in 8th grade history

"And this will be on the test!" That the Civil war was about "State's rights" and NOT slavery.

[cbayer]

77. I totally believe you.

Of all the states I have been to or lived in, Florida and Alabama seemed to have the most investment in that being true.

As with so many things, I agree with my tour guide that it was about money, and slavery was all about money.

[edhopper]

81. Well yes

the economics of slavery.

It wasn't that they just liked to own people, it was what that brought them.

You know the whole vile Gone with the Wind bullshit.

[pinto]

50. (aside) My early schooling was in TX. We had Texas history before we had US history classes.

When I moved to MA and sat in US history and US civics classes (yes, there used to be civics classes) I went "Oh, here's another perspective..."

[cbayer]

56. Exactly the opposite of mine and probably equally head spinning.

Another example is that in "the colonies" we were give a very particular perspective on our history with native americans. I was stunned when I moved to New Mexico and found out what had gone on there.

[edhopper]

57. Ah Texas

the most important event was a massacre at a small fort of people trying to keep slavery.

[pinto]

84. The Alamo (1836) was before the Civil War. It was part of what's seen in TX as the Texas Revolution.

i.e. Or the War for Independence from Mexico, meant to establish the Republic of Texas militarily. Texas joined the US in 1845. Ironically, the Texas Constitution was modeled on the US Constitution, yet TX eventually sided with the secessionist Confederacy.

[edhopper]

89. I was being a little flip

but one of the big reasons Texas opposed Mexico was Mexico's abolishing of Slavery.
Davey Crockett was there for land a slavery.

[pinto]

99. Eh, you're fine with me. There were lots of opportunists in the mix.

And there were some seedy aspects to the whole picture. Interesting how history gets rewritten and retold over time.

[edhopper]

107. Yeah

I just find the dubious parts of the Alamo story are so overlooked.

And turning a military disaster into the iconic image of a State is interesting.

[LiberalAndProud]

64. Can you give us a synopsis of the differences between the two accounts?

It intrigues me how quickly historical fact gets obscured and confused.

[cbayer]

71. I do give some information down thread, but I'm not going to write

a tome.

Just the experience of visiting civil war sites and hearing the guides talk about "us" and "them" is a paradigm shift. Plus they never told us about the absolute horrors that were rained onto people who were innocent.

I have learned to never swallow a historical telling whole, especially if it is told by someone who is invested in one narrative.

Facts most certainly do get obscured and confused and over time, it becomes increasingly difficult to ever ascertain what the "facts" are.

[LiberalAndProud]

75. How rarely our accounts of war illustrate the devastation left behind, ever.

Sad, really.

[cbayer]

78. Absolutely agree.

The winners will minimize it, while the losers have no voice.

[edhopper]

76. I get a chuckle

from southerners, who are the first to say how much of a "patriotic true American" they are, talk about how they lost the war.

[cbayer]

80. Their distrust of northerners continues.

When I moved to the south, I was called a carpetbagger and treated with great suspicion. Even after living there over 20 years, I was not considered to really be from there.

[edhopper]

82. I sometimes

wonder if we are better off with the south still in the Union.

[cbayer]

118. I have a deep love for the south and would never take that position.

[edhopper]

123. You would visit it

like a foreign country.

[cbayer]

125. Lol, that's true, but I tell you what really rankles me about talk of

having them secede.

When people talk about that, they are only talking about the white republicans, tea baggers and rednecks.

They fail to consider that the masses of poor black and brown people would be left at the mercy of those people.

The south is more than just white bigots.

[pinto]

112. My mother had to have her mother-in-law rent a house for the family. My father was stationed in OR

and my mother had a strong New England accent. My grandmother knew the score and stepped in without a second thought.

[cbayer]

119. That's exactly how it works. Lack of trust runs deep.

[cbayer]

33. I wasn't criticizing what was going on here, just putting in my 2 cents about the uselessness

of the debate in general.

Ok?

[LiberalAndProud]

43. That's fine. I wasn't trying to pick a fight.

[bvf]

83. Then why bother responding

if you don't have a dog in the fight, as it were?

Either Jesus was a real person or he wasn't. Either of those possibilities is a fact.

There is no evidence beyond the word of a writer or two or three, writing some centuries after this individual was supposed to have lived.

Yet billions of human beings accept not only that he existed, but was "divine" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean).

[cbayer]

88. I have to have a dog in the fight to express my opinion?

I don't care whether jesus was a real person or not and I don't think we will ever know.

Nor do I think it makes any difference.

But carry on with your futile argument that he never existed. Billions of humans disagree with you.

[bvf]

94. I never said he never existed.

I said there's no direct evidence of the claim.

Feel free to carry on with your misrepresentation of others' arguments. That seems to be your style.

[cbayer]

104. "Feel free to carry on with your misrepresentation of others' arguments.That seems to be your style"

You win!

[bvf]

110. Noted.

[treestar]

55. It always matters

The large majority concerns themselves with it in some way. But if you want to step aside, you can do that, too. Often people want to talk about something I don't care about, so I step out (sports, mostly).

[notadmblnd]

28. yes, I believe that religious zealots existed (as they do currently) who were/are not God.

[Cleita]

32. I think someone whom we have named Jesus, but whose real name was probably

Joshua, did exist and he was an itinerant preacher. But there were many such men in Palestine at that time so I think much of what was credited to Jesus was a compilation of tales and moral lessons handed down by word of mouth that came from these preachers.

What's more important is the concept in the Greco-Roman world at the time, as written about by the late Joseph Campbell, of the hero who was the son of a god. There was Perseus, Heracles and many others. Jews did not believe that but in a messiah who was a hero. However, the Romans, who were to adopt and develop the new beliefs, took that extra step to make the messiah the Son of God.

This is just my opinion and can easily be ignored.

[raccoon]

250. Interesting post. nt

[pinto]

49. Sort of a moot point, imo.

[cbayer]

65. Now, I'm going to have to take you to task, because this is a thorn in my side.

Moot really means open for discussion or debate. It's only the US that is it used to mean exactly the opposite.

[LiberalAndProud]

72. Please find the humor intended here.

It does seem like the subject at hand suits your definition.

[cbayer]

74. It does indeed, but it's not what my friend pinto meant...

[pinto]

91. LOL, I saw the discussion somewhere earlier. Now,

Should I cleave to or from that discussion, or is it best to refrain the discussion, or put it on the table as it were?

[cbayer]

92. I move to table indefinitely.

Second?

[pinto]

96. I'll second that emotion.

[edhopper]

93. Who gives a shit what the rest of the world uses

MERIKA!!!

And Football is played by the NFL that other game with no hands is Soccer!

MERIKA!!!

the rest of the world is moot.

MERIKA!!!

[cbayer]

101. USA!!!! USA!!! USA!!!!

[edhopper]

103. FUCKEN A!!!

[Htom Sirveaux]

59. Two questions that, for me, resolve the question in favor of Jesus's existence.

1. If he didn't exist, why include his baptism by John the Baptist? If the Gospel progression is Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (and that's a common scholarly position), that would mean that each succeeding gospel distanced Jesus from the disciple/master relationship that Mark has between Jesus and John. Understandable if you are trying to emphasize Jesus's superiority, but why include the baptism in the first place if you are making things up out of whole cloth and don't have to?

2. If he didn't exist, why establish his messiahship through death by crucifixion/resurrection? You're making up a tale of a messiah to dupe the masses, right? Who makes up a tale that doesn't conform to traditional understandings of messiahship, and then completely reinterprets existing scriptures in that light? And gives him a shameful, degrading death as a criminal on top of that? That's not going to sell to the crowds, and it didn't. Most Jews didn't accept it. And if it wasn't meant for Jewish crowds at all, why have a Jewish messiah in an empire where the Jews weren't exactly popular, given their repeated revolts?

[edhopper]

79. I am in the camp

that some man existed that he is based on.

But as to your other questions, I don't think there was a big thought out conspiracy to start a religion. it wasn't Scientology (which itself morphed over time)

I think a lot of it was created as they went along.

[Htom Sirveaux]

121. And I would agree with that gradual invention.

Along those lines, Bart Ehrman's new book "How Jesus Became God" is quite good.

[edhopper]

122. Thanks

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

85. Your point #1?

Your second point seems like a reasonable argument, but I don't understand the first point -- we have no more historical evidence of John the Baptist's existence than we do of Jesus' so far as I know. No contemporary mention, I think? First mention for both is in Josephus about 50 years later or so?

Am I mistaken?

[Htom Sirveaux]

114. We don't have contemporary records for many ancient figures

And that includes figures far more notable than a dusty, rabble-rousing prophet from an imperial backwater. 50 years is actually pretty good. Plus, it's not like Josephus had a vested interest in pushing the existence of John, given that he betrayed the Jews and went over to the Roman side.

[LiberalAndProud]

87. It's interesting to me that you find elements of the story convincing because they are in the story.

Why would Ron L. Hubbard invent the planet Xenu? Not so plausible, but included in Scientology mythology anyway. I can easily attribute either of those elements to human invention, gifted storytelling, and plagiarism from preexisting mythologies.

[Htom Sirveaux]

116. You could if you wanted, but it wouldn't be convincing unless you had more

than just declaration to back it up. My whole point is that there are motives not to use those three sources to make up the two elements I mentioned, if the story is completely made up. Very different from telling a story about one more planet in a universe full of them.

[LiberalAndProud]

120. I concede that my summary declarations carry no more or no less weight than yours.

As a literary device, Jesus' baptism at the inauguration of his ministry makes sense to me. When creating superhuman gods, one must always include supernatural features. Otherwise they're just not gods.

[Htom Sirveaux]

124. Lots of people were baptized by John, not just Jesus.

The "supernatural element" is the voice from the sky. The baptism itself was just a baptism. The meaning was a symbolic crossing over the river Jordan (through repentance of sins) into the promised land, whose coming as the Kingdom of God John was preaching. Accepting John's baptism made Jesus John's disciple. That kind of subordination to a human being is NOT a feature you want in your gods.

Also, incidentally, Jesus's baptism doesn't inaugurate his ministry in Mark. John's arrest does, which also points in the direction of John being the master and Jesus the disciple.

[LiberalAndProud]

126. As I have said elsewhere, there is beauty in it.

Although I don't find this compelling evidence of history as you do, I appreciate that the story is magnificent and beautiful.

[struggle4progress]

144. The principle is this: awkward bits of text are more probative that non-awkward bits

By extracting the parallel language from "Matthew" and "Luke," it is possible to reconstruct fragments of a lost gospel "Q" which is distinct from "Mark" and appears to contain a variant of the same baptism story. Variants of the baptism story in Mark 1 thus date from a time before the current gospels were written and circulated in very early Christian communities

The role played by John in "Mark" is somewhat problematic. Roughly, in its entirety, it says:

John appeared in the desert, proclaiming an immersion for conversion and cancellation of debts. And all Judea and everyone in Jerusalem went into the desert and received his immersion in the Jordan while admitting their debts. John dressed in camel-hair with a leather and ate locusts and wild honey. And he taught, “Someone, stronger than I, is coming; and I am not good enough to kneel down and untie his sandals. I immerse you in water, but he will immerse you in the Holy Spirit.” In those days, Jesus arrived from Nazareth in Galilee and was immersed by John in the Jordan. Immediately, as he came from the water, he saw the heavens split open, and the Spirit coming down like a dove upon him, and a voice from Heaven: “You are my dearly-beloved Son, on whom my favor rests”

Since the text we call "Mark" sets out to discuss (as indicated by its original title) the "the beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ" -- clearly indicating that "Mark" regards its central figure Jesus as "the Christ" -- "Mark" clearly intends by this pericope to say that Jesus is the "dearly-beloved Son" and the expected the "one who is coming." Since by "I am not good enough to tie his sandals," John means he is less than a slave in comparison to the "one who is coming," this quote fits nicely into the narrator's view of Jesus as "the Christ"

The awkwardness of the pericope is now evident: John's baptism of Jesus suggests Jesus was one of John's disciples. Why is "Mark" reporting John baptised Jesus, if "Mark" regards Jesus as the "dearly-beloved Son" and the expected "one who is coming"? And a natural reason for "Mark" to include this awkward story is that he could not easily avoid including it, if there were a widespread oral tradition that "Jesus was a disciple of John"

"Mark" is obviously written for an audience familiar with some stories about John the Baptist, since we next hear in Mark 1:14, Jesus came into Galilee after John’s arrest, without providing any details of the arrest or its aftermath; and John then plays no further role in the narrative. So stories about John were known, to the community addressed by "Mark," before "Mark" was written: the text overlaps part of a larger oral tradition. And this oral tradition includes some Jesus stories, since "Mark" does not title his work "the good news of Jesus Christ" but rather "the beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ," which presupposes that the audience has already heard "the good news of Jesus Christ" and now might be interested in "the beginning"

That's good evidence for the existence of John

[LiberalAndProud]

147. It's problematic for me to accept the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true.

To me it seems analogous that I could posit that because there is a prequel, then Star Wars must be a true account.

I don't intend disrespect when I say this.

[struggle4progress]

149. If you actually read what I wrote, you will see that I merely applied rather standard methods

of textual criticism to draw conclusions

[LiberalAndProud]

150. I did read it, and now again. Actually.

You did exactly what you say you did.

[edhopper]

148. Yes, another thought would be

if there were still followers of john around, or he held a certain reference, it was a good idea to place him in the story of Jesus and make him subservient to enhance Jesus' stature.

[guillaumeb]

86. another thing to consider

Jesus is referenced and revered as a prophet numerous times in the Quran. As is his mother, Mary. This is corroboration if not "proof" that Jesus did live.

http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbworld.aspx?pageid=8589953017

And from the Romans there is much written references to historical Jesus. Again, corroboration.

http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources


How much independent corroboration is needed before there is sufficient proof?

[edhopper]

90. Your kidding right.

A book written 700 years after the fact, with stories based on the already widely distributed Gospels is corroboration?

Tacitus and Josephus wrote decades later and probably used Christian sources.

There was no contemporaneous documentation of Jesus.

[guillaumeb]

102. no

the point, which I should have stated, is that there is abundant written accounts of Jesus as an historical person. Given the written record, should we instead assume that there was no historical Jesus that inspired the writers?

If you have proof that Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny used Christian sources as their exclusive basis for writing I would be interested in your sources.

from the annals of Cornelius Tacitus - Governor of Asia

Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian and governor of Asia [Turkey] in A.D. 112. He was a personal friend of the historian Pliny the Younger. In his Annals, written after AD 64, he referred to Emperor Nero's persecution of the Christians. This attack was caused by Nero's false accusation that the Christians had burned the city of Rome. This monstrous lie was intended to cover the truth that the evil emperor himself had ordered the capital set on fire. Tacitus wrote:

To suppress therefore the common rumour, Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishments upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known as Christians. They had their denomination from Christus [Christ], who in the reign of Tiberius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, though checked for a while, broke out again, and spread, not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city [Rome] also
Annals of Imperial Rome, XV 44).

Again, from Suetonius,

Caius Suetonius was the official historian of Rome during the reign of both Emperor Trajan and Adrian. He was also a friend of Pliny the Younger, and was referred to in several of Pliny's letters. Suetonius wrote a book on the Lives of the First Twelve Caesars. In the section on the Emperor Claudius (who ruled from AD 41 to 54) Suetonius referred to the Christians causing disturbances in Rome which led to their being banished from the city. Suetonius wrote about Claudius: "He banished the Jews from Rome, who were continually making disturbances, Chrestus being their leader." He identified the sect of Jewish Christians as being derived from "the instigation of Chrestus" which was his curious spelling of the name Christ (Life of Claudius 25.4, written in A.D. 125). This statement provides powerful evidence that there were a significant number of Christians living in Rome before A.D. 54, only two decades after Jesus. This passage confirms the statement of Luke (in the Book of Acts) about the exiling of the Jews from Rome during the reign of Claudius. The Apostle Paul found, "a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome and came unto them" (Acts 18:2).

All of this and more talks of historical Jesus.

[edhopper]

109. I was referring to your use of the Koran

as not serious.

That Paul converted people to Christianity (or whatever he called it) I don't doubt. So Tacitus and Josephus would have encountered them, or other people who did.

I do think this was based on some man around at the time. I am not a mythicist.

I just think that none of the Gospels can be seen as having any accuracy.

We don't need Luke for confirmation about what happened in 70 AD. But it had little to do with Christians.

[LiberalAndProud]

113. There is no argument that Christians existed. That's well documented.

But the fact remains that we have discovered absolutely no contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus. And there are extremely credible arguments that Josephus' reference is a forgery.

[okasha]

157. There are actually two references in Josephus.

The "Flavian Testimony"" that you're referring to is accepted by scholars as an interpolation. Someone either added the entire passage at a later date or highly embellished a much more modest text. Crossan makes a good case for the latter possibility. In any case, the "Testimony" as it stands is unreliable.

There is, however, a second mention of Jesus that is considered genuine by most scholars. Jesus is mentioned almost in passing as the brother of James in Josephus' account of James' judicial murder by the high priest Annas. If Jesus were not a historical figure, we would then have a rather strange case of an attested person who for no comprehensible reason is egregiously provided with a fictional sibling. It would be rather like a reference to "President John Kennedy, brother of Stanley."

[edhopper]

159. And also strange that a man

who had such a following, who performed such miracles and came back from the dead only gets a passing mention. And only because of his brother.

(I know you are not saying anything about the Jesus of the NT, just commenting)

[okasha]

161. There's another way of looking at that.

James--Yakov, actually--was a common name among first century Jews. If Josephus is using Jesus to specify which one of the many Yakovs he's referring to, that assumes that Jesus is the better-known figure. He doesn't go into detail about Jesus here because he doesn't need to. The reaction he wants from his reader is, "Oh, that James."

[edhopper]

162. There was already a Christian movement by that time

So people would be aware of the name. Especially among jews around Josephus.

But I'm not a mythicist. Just someone who doubt's every word of the NT.

[Yorktown]

196. Josephus is second hand testimony

He wrote circa 100CE; His sources were most probably Christian, or from people who heard about Christians.

[okasha]

199. Josephus was a historian.

There is no expectation that a historian will have experienced the material s/he writes about. Josephus' source for his account of James' murder was more likely either a Jew living in Rome or a Roman who was aware of the political fallout of the killing, which was considerable.

The Jewish War was written c.75CE, antiquities c. 94.

[Yorktown]

201. Josephus did not quote his sources and waited 20 years to mention Jesus

Had Josephus believed Jesus to be a person of great importance in Jewish history, he would have made a reference to him in his earlier 'War of the Jews' in 75CE.

Josephus only mentions Jesus in his 'Antiquities of the Jews' of 93, and still does not give a major role to Jesus in that book. Far from the large place a Jesus widely celebrated would have commended.

Last but not least, Josephus not explaining what his sources were, it is difficult not to imagine his source was directly or indirectly Christian.

[okasha]

203. Ancient historians did not name their sources

as a regular practice.

During the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, Christians were personae non gratae in Rome. If we're going to trade in subjunctives, Josephus was a freedman and client of the Emperor. One of his motives in producing his works was to portray Jewish culture and people as both ancient and civilized (and, of course, duly obedient to Rome.). Making much of a rebel executed for sedition wasn't ib n line with those goals. James, however, was highly respected by the Temple leadership in Jerusalem, which in turn was obedient to Rome. His murder, with other abuses, resulted in Annas'deposition as High Priest by Rome. Rome was directly involved in the aftermath of the incident. So yes, either a Roman or Jewish source is likely here.

Let me repeat this since it doesn't seem to register with you. Jesus was not "celebrated" by Romans. He was a shamefully executed seditionist, not at all the kind of Jew Josephus wanted to present to Imperial readers.

[Yorktown]

205. You made three mistakes here

1- pretending I said Jesus was celebrated by the Romans.
The formulation of that false assertion is not too civil, btw (since it doesn't seem to register with you)

2- saying Jesus was executed for sedition. According to the gospels, the Jews wanted him dead for blasphemy.
Maimonides wrote that the decison by the Sanhedrin to condemn Jesus to death was one of the best it ever took.

3- In depicting Josephus motivations when describing Jesus.
The general objective of Josephus's books was to prop up Rome, granted.
But the only passage of Josephus directly describing Jesus is obviously directly from Christian sources.
Be it only because Josephus mentions the resurrection of said Jesus, surprisingly without commenting the fact.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3

[okasha]

206. Wrong. Those three mistakes are yours.

1. I neither said nor implied that you said Jesus was celebrated by the Romans. I merely pointed out that giving him more ink than absolutely necessary would not have been in Josephus' best interest or his books'.

2. Blasphemy was punished by the Sanhedrin, by stoning: cf. Stephen. Seditition was punished by the Romans, by crucifixion. Jesus was crucified by Pilate, not stoned by Jews.

3. That passage is considered by scholars to be all or in part a much later interpolation. Josephus certainly never said that Jesus was the Christ, since he had flattered Vespasian by telling him that prophecies about the Messiah foretold Vespasian's election as Emperor while in Judea.

[Yorktown]

208. No. You demonstrably committed 3 mistakes.

1- the first in your sentence that I quoted

Let me repeat this since it doesn't seem to register with you. Jesus was not "celebrated" by Romans.

Anyway you look at it, that sentence was wrong (not to mention haughty).
You claimed that I did not register the fact you would have mentioned to me Jesus was not celebrated by the Romans. This would suppose that you would have already mentioned the fact to me before, and that I would have shown signs or not understanding or disagreeing. Which is obviously untrue.

2- you insist Jesus was condemned for sedition. You have no proof of this allegation. We have no secular record by the Romans of a Yeshua condemned for sediton. We can only read from the unreliable Christian texts who mention that the non-Christian Jews wanted to kill Jesus for blasphemy. Summary: I have one unreliable source to back my claim, you have none. (NB: crucifixion covered a whole range of offenses, so we don't know why an initial claim of blasphemy ended up in a crucifixion)

3- Your argumentation about Josephus is a downward self defeating spiral. You started off mentioning Josephus as the earliest historian who mentioned Jesus. You now reject my Josephus passage as 'later interpolation' when it is actually the only passage of Josephus that actually says something about Jesus. The other two passages of Josephus mention James brother of Yeshua and a John named the Baptist. Neither passage says anything about that Yeshua. You therefore very neatly annihilated your initial contention about Yeshua in Josephus.

[edhopper]

210. Josephus is evidence

that there was a real man named Yeshua. and nothing more. The rest is speculation.

Do you both agree with that?

[okasha]

211. I would add that it further demonstrates

that he had a brother named Yakov who was executed on order of the High Priest.

That's it.

[Yorktown]

212. Yes. But Josephus is one evidence religions tamper with truth.

The only passage of josephus which makes any kind of claim about Yeshua is obviously directly inspired by Christianity. Since it was not the objective of Josephus to prop up that nascent religion, that Josephus passage is most likely a fraud.

Much in the same way the 'original' texts of Islam can be demonstarted to be tainted by fraud.

While I'm all for retaining the 'nice' passages of all 'religions', it's impossible not to note the huge amounts of fraud orthodoxies rely on..

[edhopper]

213. Yes

and I think osaka agrees.

The one quote, that he was the brother of James is all we have.

The "wiseman" quote can't be accredited.

There is just this:

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

[okasha]

232. Ranch dressing, please.

And hold the radishes.

[Viva_Daddy]

230. no and no

The Koran was written some 500 years after the 1st Century, so it is no "proof" of Jesus' historicity. There is NO Roman references to any historical Jesus, only the the presence of people who called themselves Christians.

[Promethean]

128. I believe some of it.

It is already well established that there were a lot of street preachers during the Roman occupation of Judea. It is also known that the priesthood had teamed up with the wealthy of the Hebrew residents to concentrate their wealth and power. These two facts make a street preacher that gave speeches portraying the wealthy in a negative light to be quite likely. Such a preacher getting a bit of a following among the poor and downtrodden? Also likely. It is also likely once he had a following he felt empowered to walk into a temple and make a scene which then prompted the wealthy and powerful to use their power to remove him.

All the miracles and such are obvious embellishments from word of mouth communication.

[edhopper]

131. Or stories of several of these men

put together in a composite, right?

[Promethean]

134. Another likely hypothesis.

I leave it out due to Occam's Razor. I'm willing to accept there was someone who did the clearly possible things, upset some powerful people and paid for it. Adding further complication doesn't change or reinforce my point so I leave it out.

[edhopper]

137. I look at as

the divine Jesus was the creation of Paul and other early Christians. So I don't discount where they got their ideas. Maybe one man mainly, but things from a few others thrown in.
All speculative, i agree.

[On the Road]

132. I Believe the *Certainty* of Both Sides Comes from General Tribalism,

oversimplification of the arguments, and not being familiar with the vast source material.

The most common reason for personal certainty that Jesus did exist is probably religious faith, but there are historical grounds for being reasonably certain too. The clearest is a reference to Jesus' brother in Galatians, a document that even skeptical textual scholars agree is genuine.

Jesus Mythers tend to rely on the absence of evidence as well as on stories about Jesus that are clearly mythic and sometimes reflected in older sources. These are not particularly compelling to historians, but they may be to laypeople attracted by a message of "here's something they don't want you to know."

[LiberalAndProud]

133. Do you wonder why Paul added this?

20(Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)



I do. As I said, I don't know that Jesus is a myth. I'd rather like it if not. But using Paul's (truthful) words to confirm Paul's message seems a bit circular.

[On the Road]

151. I Have Never Heard That Construed in That Way

I don't believe that the physical existence of Jesus was part of the context of that sentence, though.

Robert Eisenman believes that Paul used that phrase because he was referred to as "The Spouting Liar"in some of the Qumran documents. In any event, Paul got kicked out of the Jewish synagoges, possibly by James, for making things up about his brother Jesus and his message.

[LiberalAndProud]

152. And that's the first I've heard of that construction of Paul's ejection from the temple.

At this point I must request a link.

[On the Road]

180. We Don't Know of Paul Being Thrown Out of the Temple Itself

although he was arrested there later in his life. The ejection was from synagogues in other cities, largely in Syria and Turkey. From 2 Corintians 11:

5 I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles....
--snip with too much context for thread
24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones....
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11&version=NIV

The 'super-apostle' reference indicates that his enemy was also considered a follower of Jesus. This strongly suggests James, since he is depicted (eg, Acts 15) as having some kind of presiding authority over the movement and (Galatians 1) sent representatives to ensure that Jews (including Paul and Peter) were following the ritual law.

There are a lot veiled references to the Paul-James dispute in the NT. For example: "One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables." (Rom 14:2). This is very likely a swipe by Paul at James, who later Church fathers describe as having been a vegetarian. The letter of James says "Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?" This is pretty clearly a reference to Paul's doctrine of salvation by faith alone. (Note: James is often considered pseudonymous, but given the context and timeline it seems unlikely to me.)

Paul pretty much ignored the historical Jesus and preferred to speak about Jesus as a heavenly figure. This is due to Paul's gnosticism or gnostic tendencies, but also probably to the inconvenience of Jesus' actual relatives being his enemies.

"I am not lying" appears four times in the epistles, making it appear to be a general defense against being repeatedly called a liar. It is hard to see Paul defending Jesus' physical existence to the Galatians, since the context is a dispute with Jesus' physical brother.

[LiberalAndProud]

186. See, all that background only helps to convince me that Paul was the original Christian conman.

Damned successful one too.

I wasn't thinking that Paul was talking about Jesus' physical existence. His constant proclamations of honesty make me think he's a liar. Probably.

[On the Road]

191. Sorry to Miss Your Meaning --

I agree "I am not lying" sounds like special pleading. The fact that Paul uses the same phrase in three different letters sounds to me like he was responding to a particular accusation that was circulating. Robert Eisenman thinks this is related to the Qumran document mentioning the Teacher of Righteousness, the Wicked Priest, and the "Lying Spouter, who denies the law in the midst of the whole congregation." Note: The Qumram documents are usually dated earlier, but there are good reasons to doubt the traditional dating (eg, Norman Golb, "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?&quot .

This question is so weird IMO because it looks like Paul may have been mythologizing an actual person, but pretty much just appropriating the name and applying it to his own heavenly character. What persuades me that Jesus was historical is that James is universally discussed in the early material as a physical relative, and the desopnysi that Domitian interrogated were seen as physical relatives of Jesus. I realize it is possible that 'brother' is not used literally, but the scholars on Crosstalk2 insist that Paul would have used a word other than adelphos if that's what he meant, and few of them have a religious ax to grind.

This is what I am starting to think happened: Jesus depicted himself as the King of the Jews, either trying to incite a revolt or hoping for divine intervention. He did what revolutionaries at the time did -- stir up support in the countryside and then reveal himself when the whole country was at a fever pitch in Jerusalem. The Romans and ruling Jews had good reason to suspect him of sedition. His death was not planned.

The earliest belief about the resurrection was that it was a spiritual resurrection from the cross -- Jesus ascended spiritually into heaven, and nothing special happened to his body. Although we do not know the details, James was famous for his "ascents" into the heavens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascents_of_James). Putting the two together, it is inevitable that James would report that he saw his brother in heaven, perhaps sitting at God's right hand -- this is the original heavenly Jesus. Some of this material was shared orally with subgroups of messianic Jews who met in the synagogues around the Mediterranean.

Paul picked up on this heavenly Jesus and appropriated his popularity for his own purposes, not caring about the real Jesus' beliefs. While Peter and some others accepted him at first, his denial of circumcision and Jewish law caused James to eventually banish him from the synagogues.

In the second century, Marcion issued the first New Testament consisting of ten letters of Paul and a version of Luke. Marcion argued that Paul was a gnostic and was the only correct interpreter of Jesus' teaching. The most incindiary belief of gnosticism was the claim that the god of the Old Testament was not Jesus' father but a jealous local tribal god. That got people's attention.

Marcion was eventually excommunicated, and part of the backlash against him was a reemphasis on literal truth rather than the allegories and heavenly truths of gnosticism. During the mid-2nd C, Irenaeus added three more Gospels and some other letters. Material that did not fit doctrine was changed, and in some case new sayings or stories were introduced or altered to fit orthodoxy. (Eg, at Jesus' baptism, the Arian "today I have begotten you" became "with you I am well pleased", as Bart Ehrman argues). Which is a big reason for the mass confusion in this area.

Strangely enough, while I agree Paul was dishonest, his version of Christianity was the most positive and uplifting as opposed to the ascetic legalism of James or the severity of the orthodox fathers. Arguably, more of the highest religious ideals of Western civilization can be traced to Paul than to anyone else.

[okasha]

160. The beginning of Galatians

reflects a rift between Paul and the leaders of the church in Jerusalem: James, Peter and John Zebedee. It seems that they were alarmed at some of Paul's teaching and sent envoys to his congregations to correct them. Paul swears to the Galatians that he, not the leaders' representative, is telling the truth--and by implication that James, Peter and John have got it all wrong.

Despite Paul's rather half-hearted job of papering over their differences, his anger comes through in his reference to "the so-called pillars" of the Jerusalem. The breach turned out to be irreconcilable. Just how wide it was is the subject of James Tabor's Paul and Jesus. If you want to give some time to the question, I recommend this book.

[edhopper]

135. Paul is interesting

putting aside that we just have copies of his letters from hundreds of years later, that were only transcribed by the faithful.
And if we try to discern his real letters from the ones we can't attribute to him, outside one mention of the resurrection, none of the fanciful tales of Jesus are spoken of.
And of course all of Paul's info was second hand, having never met or seen Jesus.

[LiberalAndProud]

138. Paul account of Jesus life was second hand.

But I must correct you. If he wrote god's honest truth, he met the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus.

[edhopper]

140. Well

Last edited Sat Mar 28, 2015, 08:35 PM - Edit history (1)

he saw something on the road.

But I read to many stories about people encountering "ghosts" to put much stock in what an eyewitness thinks he saw.

People just saw Jesus in a hill in Colombia.

[img][/img]

[LiberalAndProud]

141. I can't say.

But if he wasn't lying, I'd like some of whatever he was smoking.

Also --- that face in Colombia? Looks just like me.

[edhopper]

146. I don't know about Paul

but John was definitely inhaling.

[stone space]

153. pssssst...

It's Colombia, not Columbia.

I don't usually worry about spelling, since my own spelling is atrocious, but this one is a pet peeve of mine.



By the way, I may be somewhat biased here, but that's the best Jesus that I've seen by a landslide!

Beats the hell out of any burnt piece of toast.

I'd like to think that we might be able to go and see it some day, but it's probably too unstable to last and travel can be difficult in Colombia.

[edhopper]

154. I'll correct it

But when I am on my tablet spelling is out of my hands.

[pretzel4gore]

136. taint no God...

too bad I just figured this out, having assumed all our wise men knew what of the spoke, but...it's in the numbers! We KNOW certain things- our books are fulla knowledge. We KNOW there's a universe, though how big it is and how it came to exist(??) we only theorise. This we KNOW. In all the Universe, there is one intelligence that reflects on itself, uses radio waves etc. That right, we human beings! Where did this 'intelligence' come from? Well science can explain how life emerged SOMEWHERE a few billion years ago... how supenova made of galxies blew up way the hell and gone that way--> and produced heavy metal elements that infested the material universe, and these magic potions, mixed with eyes of newt etc boiled up in big pot produced lil bugs called ameoba, which, millions of years later literally emerged out the infested seas to infest land which ALREADY was infested with plant life, birds etc...Natural selection chose ten thousand variations, then ruthlessly got rid of all except the nastiest one of all, the human being. And HE made up gods, cuz well gods are too easy to believe in. There's never been a society that did not conjure up GOD, and Christianity is just the NASTIEST religion of all, easily (for ex. it was a Christian mob that burned the Great Library at Alexandria, considered the most stupid evil crime in western history, until nazi death camps)) and though even someone who read 10 thousand books by time 40 years old, DID NOT KNOW THAT, that says how lotsa money was spent hiding the facts!
Another thing, what was Jesus's name, his family name? He was historical, after all....

[edhopper]

139. Yeshua Ben Yosef

Other than that, I liked your rant.

[LiberalAndProud]

142. Really?

I always believed it was H. Christ. I learn new things every day.

[edhopper]

145. heh heh

[LiberalAndProud]

143. That whole Alexandria thing?

Still pisses me off too.

[Leontius]

170. Yeah those thieving Ptolemies have a lot to answer for.

[LiberalAndProud]

172. Honestly, if I could get my hands on them!

In all seriousness, I do grieve for the lost history and accumulated knowledge. Senseless destruction always gets me down.

[Aunt Bold Ire8]

155. Wandering teacher-healers were part of the cultures in that region for centuries.

And whether he was "God" or not, it hardly makes any sense at all to define something that would be "God" (& how is that even possible?) and then pretend to objectively evaluate whether the thing that (rhetorical) you defined exists or not.

Personally, I don't care whether he was "God" or not; that matter and the lies and mistakes that are commonly spread about him don't change the relevance of his story.

[YOHABLO]

156. Reza Aslan's book ''Zealot'' was helpful in seeing Jesus from a different perspective.

It would seem that John ''the baptist'' had a great influence on this young man. I am wondering also just how literate Jesus would have been. He didn't write anything down and relied on his disciples to get his message out. I see Jesus as a simple man of simple means who cared about those cast out by society. Whether we believe that Jesus was the son God may have credence since we are told to believe that we are all children of god. In the catechism of the Catholic Church, we are taught the existence of the Holy Trinity .. which, as a child, I found very confusing and still do. So does this make Christianity polytheistic?

[Humanist_Activist]

179. From a textual level, Jesus seems to be a legendary figure, rather than a strict historical one...

for one, the record is incomplete, for two, just from the canonical gospels, it seems that the later ones elaborate much more on Jesus and his miracles than earlier ones. This is myth creation 101. However, this doesn't discount the possibility that a man named Yeshua existed around the same time period and preached some of what Jesus was said to preach, just that this man wouldn't be the Jesus of the New Testament, but an aspect of that character, a base that myth and legend was then built on.

[Yorktown]

198. There probably was an Essenian Jew guru named Yeshua/Jesus

He was a moral teacher of the rather puritanical Essenian school of Jewish thought.
Like many gurus of this period and place, he probably thought his words had some healing power.
He also probably had charisma and a sense of formula. Let he who is without sin might have been his style.

Beyond that, almost nothing can be known for certain.
There are no official records bringing any level of confidence to the whole story.

The only accounts we have are
- Only Paul witnessed Jesus life, but he does not relate it and his moral teachings differ from the gospels
- one unknown person, Mark, wrote the original gospel years later (Matthew and Luke are part copies)

There is therefore no known account of the life of Jesus by an eyewitness.
So, yes, that guru probably existed, but we do not know much for certain about him.
Among other things, it's impossible to know whether he ever claimed to be the son of a god.

[edhopper]

200. Good summary

Except Paul only met Jesus after he was dead. Or so he claimed. Not while he was alive.

[Yorktown]

202. Thanks for the heads up

Never looked into it, only read comments which mentioned Paul knew Yeshua.

I'll need to read Paul and about him.

[Viva_Daddy]

231. Jesus and his disciples are CHARACTERS in a DRAMATIC STORY...

that became "Myth-taken" for history.

[Yorktown]

236. There must have been some elements of truth

It's rare to see a cult spring from nowhere, out of pure imagination.

Like a pearl is produced by an oyster as reaction to a tiny object,

the multiple inventions of each religion are usually built around a charismatic human 'seed'.

[Warren Stupidity]

238. It's rare to see a cult spring from nowhere, out of pure imagination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum

John Frum (also called John Brum,[1] Jon Frum,[citation needed] or John From[citation needed]) is a figure associated with cargo cults on the island of Tanna in Vanuatu. He is often depicted as an American World War II serviceman who will bring wealth and prosperity to the people if they follow him. He is sometimes portrayed as black, sometimes as white. Quoting David Attenborough's report of an encounter: "'E look like you. 'E got white face. 'E tall man. 'E live 'long South America."[2]

No such person ever existed. This sort of thing is not unusual at all.

[Yorktown]

239. There were many 'cargo cults', all with a prophet or leader

Even if we do not know through which deformations the name 'john frum' was arrived at, the origin of all cargo cults was very clear: western sailors who had brought goodies to isolated islanders, and were deified for it. Their cults all promised a new golden age when the next 'prophet' would come again with a new shower of goodies.

Some still exist, including that of John Frum:
The John Frum cult on Tanna island (Vanuatu)
The Tom Navy cult on Tanna island (Vanuatu)
The Prince Philip Movement on the island of Tanna
Yali's cargo cult on Papua New Guinea (Madang-region)
The Paliau movement on Papua New Guinea (Manus island)
The Peli association on Papua New Guinea
The Pomio Kivung on Papua New Guinea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

[Warren Stupidity]

241. however there was no historical "John Frum"

and the cargo cult myths and legends, despite having many references to this person and his miracles are not evidence of an historical John Frum but rather they are evidence that such characters can emerge from real events while being entirely mythic.

The Jewish state was in an existential crisis in the 1st century - it was once again a conquered nation. It was within the context of the roman conquest, the jewish revolts, the eventual destruction of the temple and the diaspora, a cultural climate ripe for messianic myth making, that the Jesus legend evolved.

[Yorktown]

249. True, the names Jesus or John Frum are not sure facts

That's the problem with gurus who forget to set up megachurches:

they don't leave a reliable paper trail.

[edhopper]

246. It is questionable if

Juan Diego, who was made a Saint ever existed.

[LostOne4Ever]

204. I don't know but if he existed then he is dead and buried

Last edited Mon Mar 30, 2015, 04:00 AM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]It is to my understanding that the consensus among historians is that he did exist. Supposedly this based upon 1 of two passages (the first being a forgery and the 2nd authentic) from a Jewish historian Josephus among other things.

I am not a historian, so I will defer to them on this issue. That said, just because there might have been a man named Yeshua (or Yehoshuah) Bin Yosef does not mean that everything that Christians believe about him is true. No more so than the Iliad or Odyssey are true just because Troy actually existed.

I am certain that none of the miracles attributed to him happened. It is not possible to walk on water under the conditions described or in the way described by their book. Further, people do not come back from the dead.

If he was a real man, then he is as dead as any other man who was executed by the Roman empire...and not coming back.[/font]

[DonCoquixote]

207. this brings up an interesting question

Now that we have people on tape, will that affect the developments of religion? Will the fact that we can see these people talking make for a different image, or will it be unchanged?

On the one hand, it is easy to think that when we see someone with warts and bad hair, the images of the prophets may become more human. On the other hand, we have tons of tapes of L. Ron Hubbard, and it does not seem to have slowed his church down.

[edhopper]

209. Or

the numerous reports of what a huckster Joseph Smith was.

We have seen in recent history a con-man form a religion followed devotedly by millions.

[DonCoquixote]

214. Good point, but

There is no film of Joseph Smith, nor a recording. What I am wondering is if religion will change once anyone can look up film of the person speaking. I used Hubbard as an example because there is plenty of film of him alive, both as "prophet" and his regular sci fi author persona.

[edhopper]

216. True

But there was film of Romney showing his disdain for half the country, many of whom still voted for him.
Throw in God and people will ignore their own eyes.

[Yorktown]

240. There are records of convictions of Joseph Smith

And witnesses accounts of how Smith used to described the gians living on the moon.

[Yorktown]

215. Technology reduces the scope of religious fraud, but doesn't cancel out gullibility

Sathya Sai Baba ws caught on tape faking his miracles. The supply of chamans is endless.

So is the demand for miracles by rich old widows who mourn their dead pets.

[Act_of_Reparation]

218. I think it goes beyond gullibility.

Being too trusting is one thing; but I get the impression that people who throw themselves into Scientology--or any new-found theology--do so out of a genuine desire for these things to be true.

There's serious motivation there. "Gullibility" sounds like too passive a word.

[DonCoquixote]

247. My point was

OK disclaimer, scientologists will be offended so stop reading:

OK, L. Ron was actually a DECENT sci-fi author. He was no Harlan Ellison or Robert A. Heinlein or Asimov, but he did have genuine respect, and published ideas that did have a genuine impact on the genre. One of his more famous characters was an immortal doctor that seemed to travel about the universe solving problems, which was published a little bit before the BBC made Dr. Who. However, when you see him on film, he is VERY mortal. Charming yes, but very mortal, right down to the voice that obviously betrayed his chain smoking. He literally had the Scientologist make a style of recording called "clear-tone" because he was so unhappy which how his voice sounded on tape.

Now, we do not know the sound of Yeshua Ben Miriam (aka Jesus) or of Mohammed, or of Joseph Smith. Yes we can read, but when someone is shown on tape, as MORTAL, as someone you could meet in any cafe, how will it affect mythology? Granted, the Madonnas and Lady Gagas can be adored for a time, indeed archaeologists will find more evidence of them than of Hera or Venus. But will tape allow us to deconstruct prophets easier?

[AtheistCrusader]

220. There is no evidence the biblical character of Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.

There may have been a real dude by that or a similar name, somewhere in that region, somewhere around that time, but it bears little to no resemblance to the biblical character, if real at all.

And less than zero evidence that the hypothetical real person of that or a similar name, and that or a similar fate at the hands of the romans was in any way supernaturally divine.

And further still, depending on which christians you ask, they wouldn't have it any other way, because to know for certain, would mean they don't have faith. Their faith is more important to them than knowledge.

[Major Nikon]

233. There is some evidence

Tacitus refers to Jesus' crucifixion. Somewhat less reliable are the references to Jesus by Flavius Josephus.

Both of these references simply point to the existence of Jesus, and very little of any deeds attributed to him, other than being crucified.

Most credible biblical scholars agree that all 4 canonical gospels were not written by those in which they are attributed. At best they are 3rd hand accounts of the life of Jesus and are most likely even farther removed. Using them as evidence of anything should be very suspect.

[AtheistCrusader]

242. Maybe I wasn't clear but that's what I meant by specifying

the Biblical Character versus historical person, if any.

[Warren Stupidity]

243. actually the Josephus references are considered more reliable by far than tacitus

but are again only considered 'evidence' within the peculiar standards of biblical history.

[Major Nikon]

244. I'm not sure how

It's pretty well accepted that Josephus' writings were adulterated by Christians and you can't say the same about Tacitus.

[edhopper]

245. I think

one of the references "A wiseman named Jesus" is considered inserted by Christians.
And the line about "James, brother of Jesus, so-called the Christ" is accepted.

[LongTomH]

226. Talk to an educated Jew sometimes.

One of my best friends is an educated and erudite Jew. She has given talks about Jesus as an historical character. Jews respect Jesus (Yeshua ben Yusef); but, don't regard him as the messiah.

Most of Jesus (or Yeshua's) teachings are basically Jewish Rabbinical teachings. Jesus Golden Rule is very similar to the one preached by Hilel the Elder:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn"

[DavidDvorkin]

228. Not in my Jewish upbringing

My father was a rabbi. I always heard Jesus dismissed as a fable. And there was certainly no respect for the fable or Christianity in general.

[Yorktown]

235. Not all Jews respect(ed) Jesus

The most celebrated rabbi, Maimonides, did not.
A minority of Israeli Jews can be very dismissive of jesus and christianity (profanations)

But it's OK to note the many doubts on the Jesus story, as on that of Moses btw.

[nichomachus]

227. Which Jesus are you talking about?

If you read the NT carefully (which most people don't) there are at least two distinct Jesus persons the narrative claims existed. One is the peace-loving itinerant preacher. The other is the Zealot who wants his followers to fight.

Just as in the OT, there are two distinct gods -- maybe hints of a third. It's the result of legends from different tribes being mashed up into a single story with insufficient editing. (A good word processor would have really helped.)

[Yorktown]

234. Very true, the writers of the gospels injected different inputs

The gospels contradict themselves on facts (3 versions of the last word of Jesus) and on the personality of the main character as you noted. The tone can also be Pauline (anti Peter) or less so.

There is just a probable profile that can be read from the commonalities of the three synoptic accounts.

[brooklynite]

248. You're absolutely right...so show the evidence that he existed...