Was Jesus a real person?

[Ten oz]

I'll see if I can find the answer sometime. I have always found theology too difficult, so even though I call myself a Christian I tend to think "well I'll leave questions of Theology to God".

I just believe Jesus was real (backed up by my vision of text), and I look at what he said (supposedly) and try and apply them in everyday life.

As a matter of philosophy I do not have any issue with the concept attributed to Jesus. As a matter of fact I rather admire what those inspired by those concepts like Martin Luther king were able to accomplish.

[Robittybob1]

As a matter of philosophy I do not have any issue with the concept attributed to Jesus. As a matter of fact I rather admire what those inspired by those concepts like Martin Luther king were able to accomplish.

I was trying to locate information on the authorship of the Gospel of John, without much success, but I did come across the martyrdom of Polycarp "and they tried to burn him at the stake in front of a large crowd. But the flames didn't burn him and they speared him through instead and the blood put the fire out".

How much blood do these saints have?

Sad story and I just hope our following Christ doesn't end the same, but it might, for in the spirit the Lord said to me "Are you willing to die for me?"

To which I replied "Yes Lord but not just yet".

Martin Luther King paid the price but what an amazing honour he gets in the USA now, that amazes me every year and I don't even live there.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Robittybob1

[yahya515]

Then certainly you're not a muslim.

A Muslim, follows both Quran & Ahl-Ul-Bayt as been said by prophet:

انی تارک فیکم الثقلین کتاب الله و عترتی اهل بیتی

ما ان تمسکتم بهما لن تضلوا ابدا

و انهما لن یفترقا حتی یردا علی الحوض

Ahl-Ul-bayt are the best among all Muslims they are after Mohammed in rank and before his followers, but I believe that Mohammed himself should follow Quran and not to add to it, Quran itself contains sayings of Mohammed and other prophets, there are only three books (or more) that we should believe in , Torah, Gospel, and Quran. No Talmud, No Sunnah, No Acts, etc.

[Robittybob1]

Ahl-Ul-bayt are the best among all Muslims they are after Mohammed in rank and before his followers, but I believe that Mohammed himself should follow Quran and not to add to it, Quran itself contains sayings of Mohammed and other prophets, there are only three books (or more) that we should believe in , Torah, Gospel, and Quran. No Talmud, No Sunnah, No Acts, etc.

When you say "Gospel" do you mean the 4 New Testament Gospels?

[Eise]

I am not arguing "non-existence" I am arguing that its not clearing known if Jesus did exist. I am not closed to either probability. When you say that Jesus most probably existed you are basically saying the same thing otherwise you'd drop the most probably or likely part and just state that he did. My Caesar comparison was meant to highlight the difference between known history and speculative history. A best guess is still merely a guess.

 

Was Jesus a real person:

My answer - maybe

Your answer - most likely

 

Somehow you seem to get me wrong. I say that, given the sources we have, it is reasonable to assume Jesus existed. As you refuse to dig into the history of the sources, and sweep them away in one stroke ('Written by believers, so no use'), you come to another conclusion than I do. You see, I don't say you must believe what the NT says. I say you must dig into the history of the sources, and try to explain the similarities and the differences, and so make the best possible reconstruction of their history. If you have that, then you can try to answer how this reconstruction can be explained best: by supposing some myths popping up in those days, or by assuming there was a real person Jesus, to who all these stories are attached.

You continue to ingore why I do not consider the New Testement as solid historical references. You talk about the methods used by historians as if there is universal agreement where there simply isn't.

"A number of scholars have criticised Historical Jesus research for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, and some have argued that modern biblical scholarship is insufficiently critical and sometimes amounts to covert apologetics.[122][123]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Again, I must charge you with or ill will or sloppy thinking. You seem to have something against interpreting texts, in this case the Wikipedia article. Most of the criticism mentioned, is about how the life of Jesus is interpreted, not about his mere existence. E.g. you can see that Bart Ehrman is mentioned as one of the critics.

Beyond debate over the methodology used to determine historical events there is debate over who even wrote the gospels. Did Jon Mark write the Gospel of Mark? Does Luke and Acts have the same author? Who wrote Mathew and Canonical? As for Paul's letters there is a lot of uncertainty over how much has been added and edited over the years. For me all those question marks means it isn't clear and as such I am not going to make any positive speculations based on New Testament.

 

You must not. But you must reconstruct the history of the NT. See above.

I am an Athiest.

I am too. But I want to be an honest one. I am not 'Christian damaged', not by my past, and not by my environment.

Similarly the quest for historical Jesus is primarily a theological one. The New Testament serves the most extensive bit of information. Archeologist and Historians of the classics who have not been to seminary and are not biblical scholars don't drive this research, theologians do. Unless a Historical Scholar wants to devote their life's work to Historical Jesus debate like Richard Carrier it is best to just stay out of it. Because once someone wades in they won't be able to give a lecture or write an essay again without people showing up to agrue with them about Jesus. So many just defer to the Theologians and let them have it. As for theologians, let's not pretend that people who devote their lives to biblical study are entirely objective.

The quest for who the historical Jesus really was, might be mainly theological driven. The question if he really existed is answered also: unless we find more sources, the most reasonable assumption is that he existed. Ehrman clearly separates the last 2 Chapters of his 'Did Jesus exist' from the main part of his book. In the main part he just shows on what grounds the majority of historians suppose Jesus really existed. (He is not developing a theory of his own.) In the last two chapters he describes the best possible speculations a historian can make about who Jesus really was. But he is very clear that these are only his speculations, and that many historians might have a different view on this. The Jesus he pictures differs very much from the pictures that most Christians have, I can assure you.

 

And if somebody has an agenda, then it is Richard Carrier. I seldom read such angry articles as he writes. Instead of a joined search for truth, he is combating, with religious zeal, the pretty broad consensus under historians.

[ajb]

this kind of act is called punishment rather than revenge , he was one of the disciples and was punished for his betrayal...

This still seems very much at odds with Jesus as described in the bible.

 

...I am not sure about Moses's laws if such person should be killed...

Leviticus 24:16 "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."

 

And I am not at all surprised that such sentiments are found in the old testament. The new testament is generally less violent, but I am not exactly sure what it says about killing non-believers. However we do have this

 

Luke 19:27 "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me".

 

So Jesus was not all 'hippy'?

 

...but it is written in Qur'an that for those who fight God and his messenger should be killed or crucified or

Now given modern events this comes as no surprise to anyone, even those who are not at all interested in religions.

[Sensei]

Many accept as a matter of fact that Jesus, as described by Christianity, was a real person and it is only his divinity that is up for debate. I grew up believing as much. As an adult I realized that I have never read credible information that proved a historical Jesus. In discussions with people through the years I have found that challanging a real life historical Jesus quickly becomes battles where I am asked to prove he wasn't real person. Ultimately there seems to be a general lack of proof either way. So I ask the forum for thoughts. Is the Christian story of Jesus based on an actual living man named Jesus who live around 2,000 years ago?

 

 

Here is what I find to be a compelling explanation for why a historical Jesus most likely did not exist.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

 

Publius Cornelius Tacitus. Roman noble (not Christian)

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

described in his historic book Historiae (written in ~105 AD)

about revenge of Nero taken on Christians for "burning Rome" in 64 AD.

It's a matter to finding his original books from 105 AD, and examine them by scientific methods (radioactive isotope Carbon-14) to confirm their age (absolute required).

Alternatively find as many as possible copies of books made later and comparison whether they're equal (or whether they were changed in the meantime).

Books made before Constantine would be of course more credible (between 105 AD - 300 AD).

 

Suppose so credibility of Tacitus books is confirmed by science:

If Jesus was not a real man, who were Christians killed on the order of Nero?

They made up Jesus?

 

The same applies to Suetonius.

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

But he is the first time mentioning them existing in 49 AD (book written in 121 AD).

Unlike Tacitus who had 8 years in 64 AD, Suetonius had to use older sources, as he born in 69 AD.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Sensei

[Robittybob1]

 

...

If Jesus was not a real man, who were Christians killed on the order of Nero?

They made up Jesus?

 

 

I'm not sure if that proves anything, but it is a good point. Why be martyred for someone who isn't real?

[Eise]

I'm not sure if that proves anything, but it is a good point. Why be martyred for someone who isn't real?

 

The point is good, your refutation isn't. Who are Muslim terrorists dying for?

 

We can safely assume that the Christians during Nero's time did not make Jesus up, but thought that he really existed. However, if he was a product of fantasy, then this fantasy was made up by only one generation. That might be a nearly impossible job in times without mass communication. It is more probable that Jesus really existed. So it is the short time in which Christianity became an 'international movement' that speaks for the assumption that Jesus existed.

[Ten oz]

Publius Cornelius Tacitus. Roman noble (not Christian)

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

described in his historic book Historiae (written in ~105 AD)

about revenge of Nero taken on Christians for "burning Rome" in 64 AD.

It's a matter to finding his original books from 105 AD, and examine them by scientific methods (radioactive isotope Carbon-14) to confirm their age (absolute required).

Alternatively find as many as possible copies of books made later and comparison whether they're equal (or whether they were changed in the meantime).

Books made before Constantine would be of course more credible (between 105 AD - 300 AD).

 

Suppose so credibility of Tacitus books is confirmed by science:

If Jesus was not a real man, who were Christians killed on the order of Nero?

They made up Jesus?

 

Tacitus confirming that Christians existed within decades of Jesus' assumed life is evidence that Jesus himself may have been a real person. It does not confirm it. Jesus could be an amalgamation of several different activists who were crucified in the preceding decades. A unifying idol to rally people into a group. Does the existence of Juadism prove Moses was real or demand a theory for where his story originated?

 

I find the question "They made up Jesus" a confusing one. Confusing because the Gospels and what they say about Jesus clearly contains made up information. They say Jesus was born a virgin, performed miracles, and rose from the dead. IMO those things are obviously made up. If his story and life works were made up why couldn't he be? So the question "They made up Jesus" is really asking for a motive? Because obviously they could have made him up. They made the resurrection up, they weren't bound by reality in their story telling. As for why, it would be highly speculative for me comment on their motives especially when it isn't even known who "they" are. Authorship of many of the Gospels isn't known nor are all the key figures in the early formation of christianity less we assume it was only the apostles and none others were lost to time or subject to edit.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Ten oz

[yahya515]

This still seems very much at odds with Jesus as described in the bible..

If Jesus is so merciful why he will burn evil people in hell? he will come to get revenge according to the bible! and this revenge will not end by death!

[ajb]

If Jesus is so merciful why he will burn evil people in hell?

But it is not Jesus doing that (according to Christian scripture), quite the opposite, Jesus gives you the only chance of not burning in hell.

[Ten oz]

But it is not Jesus doing that (according to Christian scripture), quite the opposite, Jesus gives you the only chance of not burning in hell.

Who is the creator of hell? Who is the creator of Satan?

[yahya515]

But it is not Jesus doing that (according to Christian scripture), quite the opposite, Jesus gives you the only chance of not burning in hell.

My knowledge of Christianity is from reading the bible, I read that Jesus (the son of man) will come with his angels on a cloud in the judgement day with glory , only Jesus might be described as the son of man, in addition he was talking about the end of the world and when he will return.

[ajb]

Who is the creator of hell? Who is the creator of Satan?

According the bible God. So we are in a conundrum as to why a loving God would do such a thing... you should ask your local bishop about this one.

[Sensei]

Confusing because the Gospels and what they say about Jesus clearly contains made up information.

Gospels and New Testament cannot be used to prove or disprove existence of Jesus, similar like you cannot use The Lord Of The Rings book to prove or disprove existence of Gandalf.

There is needed credible independent external source of information. And I find Tacitus and/or Suetonius books as such source. As long as they're compared to find their original state, verified age etc. using objective scientific methods without prejudices toward one or another option.

Pontius Pilate was prefect of Judea between 26 AD to 36-37 AD.

So there is very little time between 26 AD and 49 AD when they're mentioned to arrive Rome (23 years max, minimum 12 years) and apparently being quite active (otherwise they wouldn't be mentioned in Roman book).

Edited October 30, 2014 by Sensei

[Ten oz]

According the bible God. So we are in a conundrum as to why a loving God would do such a thing... you should ask your local bishop about this one.

I am an atheist. I only commented to pose the conundrum.

Gospels and New Testament cannot be used to prove or disprove existence of Jesus, similar like you cannot use The Lord Of The Rings book to prove or disprove existence of Gandalf.

There is needed credible independent external source of information. And I find Tacitus and/or Suetonius books as such source. As long as they're compared to find their original state, verified age etc. using objective scientific methods without prejudices toward one or another option.

Pontius Pilate was prefect of Judea between 26 AD to 36-37 AD.

So there is very little time between 26 AD and 49 AD when they're mentioned to arrive Rome (23 years max, minimum 12 years) and apparently being quite active (otherwise they wouldn't be mentioned in Roman book).

I mostly agree. My only issue is that Tacitus does not purposely chronicle the life of Jesus. He merely describes Christians. That is circumstantial evidence at best.

I don't definitely believe there was not a Jesus. I am a maybe on the issue. I don't think there is enough information to error on the side that he was real.

[Eise]

A unifying idol to rally people into a group. Does the existence of Juadism prove Moses was real or demand a theory for where his story originated?

 

Tell me what do we know independently about the time that Moses could have existed. How could we even start to answer the question?

 

Gospels and New Testament cannot be used to prove or disprove existence of Jesus, similar like you cannot use The Lord Of The Rings book to prove or disprove existence of Gandalf.

 

Yes, they can, as I said before. But you must not treat the NT just as the truth, but as documents that have a history. If you would do the same with The Lord Of The Rings you would soon find out that it is a made up story. It is very consistent in style, utterly consistent in its story line (does somebody know about an inconsistency in The Lord Of The Rings? I don't.). And then we have an awful lot of literature around The Lord Of The Rings that shows how the book grew from previous ideas from just one single author, like elements in the ever changing history of the Silmarillion; we have letters of Tolkien in which he describes his writing etc etc.

 

If you look at the history of the NT, you find completely other things: inconsistencies in the stories, in the kind of theology, in the original language; different styles, but still elements that come back in the different scriptures. We have different versions of scriptures that show us how they were changed in time etc etc. Everything points to the assumption that Jesus really existed, but that lots of people only had second hand information, that was changed in time because of errors, ideological preconceptions of Christian authors etc etc.

 

And yes, add the mentionings of the none-Christian authors, then it all fits more or less together. However to expect absolute confirmation or evidence is a too high expectation.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Eise

[Ten oz]

 

Yes, they can, as I said before. But you must not treat the NT just as the truth, but as documents that have a history. If you would do the same with The Lord Of The Rings you would soon find out that it is a made up story.

what if we use the book Forrest Gump? Lots of real bits in that book. Vietnam is a real place, Alabama is real, actual U.S. Presidents are named, and etc. It doesn't mean Forrest himself is real.

[Robittybob1]

what if we use the book Forrest Gump? Lots of real bits in that book. Vietnam is a real place, Alabama is real, actual U.S. Presidents are named, and etc. It doesn't mean Forrest himself is real.

You'd probably find that in the foreword the author would have said whether it was true story or fictional. I don't think Genesis starts off say it is true. But in Peter 2 the author claims the Gospel of Jesus is true.

[ajb]

I am an atheist. I only commented to pose the conundrum.

It could be a nice question to ask a devout Christian. I am sure it has been asked and there are some rehearsed answers.

[Robittybob1]

It could be a nice question to ask a devout Christian. I am sure it has been asked and there are some rehearsed answers.

Devout Christians are warned about going on Science Forums. So that would be pointless. That is why the question gets asked by atheists and answered by atheists. And neither of those two take any notice of a Gnostic.

[Ten oz]

Devout Christians are warned about going on Science Forums. So that would be pointless. That is why the question gets asked by atheists and answered by atheists. And neither of those two take any notice of a Gnostic.

The Pope said evolution and Big Bang are creditable. So perhaps times are changing. A hundred year from now maybe most Christians more accurately label the Bible as a book of religious parables meant to inspire but not believe.

You'd probably find that in the foreword the author would have said whether it was true story or fictional. I don't think Genesis starts off say it is true. But in Peter 2 the author claims the Gospel of Jesus is true.

Lots of books written about first hand encounters with ghosts and alien abuction are written as true. Doesn't mean they are or that any of us believe in ghosts or aliens abuction.

[Eise]

what if we use the book Forrest Gump? Lots of real bits in that book. Vietnam is a real place, Alabama is real, actual U.S. Presidents are named, and etc. It doesn't mean Forrest himself is real.

 

You keep making the same error.

 

If you look at the history of the book 'Forrest Gump' you would find out soon enough that it is a product of fantasy. It is not enough for a text to be placed in a historical context. Every historical novel is.

 

If you look at the history of the NT, then you find that it is based on different sources, written at different times, and at different places. It is a much more probable assumption that different people, at different times, and at different places, base their writings on hearsay stories of a real person, then that based on legends people come to such stories with as well essential core elements, as widely different interpretations around them.

 

The problem in your (and maybe of all mythicists') approach, is that you throw away all hints that Jesus might have lived one for one, but do not take them all together. When all hints to a common core are taken together then they point to a real historical Jesus.

[Ten oz]

If you look at the history of the NT, then you find that it is based on different sources, written at different times, and at different places. It is a much more probable assumption that different people, at different times, and at different places, base their writings on hearsay stories of a real person, then that based on legends people come to such stories with as well essential core elements, as widely different interpretations around them.

Did Jon Mark write the Gospel of Mark?

Does Luke and Acts have the same author?

Who wrote Mathew and Canonical?

How many authors does John have and who are they?

How many of the Gospels were inspired Paul's letters?

 

You can not answer the above questions. No scholar can for sure. Which renders your point about the NT being from different sources over time meaningless. It is not clear who those sources are or if they were all just incestuously plagiarizing each others work. The NT simply is not creditable.

 

The problem in your (and maybe of all mythicists') approach, is that you throw away all hints that Jesus might have lived one for one, but do not take them all together. When all hints to a common core are taken together then they point to a real historical Jesus.

I think the error you're making conflating theology with science. The methods used by theologians use are speculative. That is not to say some theologians are not intelligent or highly educated but they specialize in concepts related to God.

Hints are not of any clear value until they lead to something tangible. You can receive hint after hint about where gold is buried but until you find the gold who is to say any of those hints were of value?