Was Jesus a real person?

[Willie71]

One of the better reads I have experienced on the new testament is Robert Price.

 

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/365593.Incredible_Shrinking_Son_of_Man

 

 

An active member of the Jesus Seminar, Dr. Robert M. Price presents the fruits of this important historical research in this fascinating discussion of early Christianity. As the title suggests, Price is none too optimistic about the reliability of the Gospel tradition as a source of accurate historical information about the life of Jesus. Indeed, he feels that his colleagues in the Jesus Seminar are much too optimistic in their estimate of authentic material in the Gospels. After an introduction to the historical-critical method for nonspecialists and a critique of the methods used by the Jesus Seminar, Price systematically discusses the narrative and teaching materials in the Gospel, clearly presenting what is known and not known about all of the major episodes of Jesus’ life. He also examines the parables for authenticity as well as Jesus’ teachings about the Kingdom of God, repentance, prayer, possessions and poverty, the Atonement, and many other features of the Gospels.
Written for the general reading public in a lively and accessible style, Dr. Price’s highly informative discussion will be of interest to anyone who has wondered about the origins of Christianity

 

Considering the Christ figure is really a conglomeration of several other messianic figures, it strongly suggests fiction, or myth rather than history.

 

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

 

Lord Raglan had a great take on this, and compares several of the myths that have been popular in several cultures. Its hardly an original work.

 

 

Back in 1936, Major [wiki]FitzRoy Somerset, 4th Baron Raglan[/wiki], a.k.a. Lord Raglan, published a book on legendary heroes, The Hero, in which he worked out a sort of average hero biography:

1. The hero's mother is a royal virgin;
2. His father is a king, and
3. Often a near relative of his mother, but
4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
6. At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
7. He is spirited away, and
8. Reared by foster parents in a far country.
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. On reaching manhood he returns to goes to his future kingdom.
11. After a victory over the king, and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor, and
13. Becomes king.
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully, and
15. Prescribes laws, but
16. Later loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
17. Is driven from the throne and city, after which
18. He meets a mysterious death,
19. Often at the top of a hill.
20. His children, if any, do not succeed him.
21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless
22. He has one or more holy sepulchres

He scored several heroes according to his profile, and he found:

Oedipus 21, Theseus 20, Romulus 18, Heracles 17, Perseus 18, Jason 15, Bellerophon 16, Pelops 13, Asclepius 12, Dionysus 19, Apollo 11, Zeus 15, Joseph 12, Moses 20, Elijah 9, Watu Gunung 18, Nyikang 14, Sigurd or Siegfried 11, Llew Llawgyffes 17, King Arthur 19, and Robin Hood 13.

 

Lord Raglan had carefully omitted Jesus Christ, not wanting to stir up additional controversy, but Alan Dundes took him on, finding a score of 19 for him. I myself have scored him at 18.5. In fact, he scores so high that some people have called the profile an effort to discredit Jesus Christ's (supposed) historicity

 

Dundes was a good brief read too. A bit dry and obvious in places, but the bible is clearly a mythical work.

 

I have a hard time seeing how anyone can take Jesus as written in the New Testament seriously as a historical figure.

[Ten oz]

Relevance?

 

It is possible to distillate a lot of the history of the gospels without knowing the authors. If you are seriously interested in this subject, read Ehrman. He explains very well what one can conclude from different versions of the same stories, of different versions of the same texts, of translation errors, of the historical context, etc. Oh, I forgot, you already put him on the list of believers, so he is not reliable. Funny however, that he is mentioned as one of the strongest critics of traditional interpretations of the Gospel stories.

 

If you do not know who the authors of the Gospels are than you don't know if all the gospels aren't just extrapolations inspired by a lone source. You don't know the source of the information being written. You can't call them independent works done by different people over time because they may all have been inspired by a single source. Mark, Mathew, and Luke are not believed to be eye witness accounts. John is the only gospel scholars (theologians) believe was written by someone who was a witness to Jesus. Of course they (theologians) do not know who that someone is. Consequencely John is also believed to be the last gospel written.....hmmm

Ultimately Paul is the most influential figure in the New Testament and he is not an eyewitness to Jesus as a human man. Paul is a witness to the vision of a resurrected Jesus. Paul is most likely the inspiration for all the gospels and he was not an eye witness to a living human Jesus.

 

 

 

 

@ Willie71, excellent post!!! You make a good point that some historians omit Jesus from discussion out of fear of backlash. Ultimately archeologist and scolars of classical history step aside and allow theologians alone to credit or discredit the bible. To me the method seems sort of like allowing sports teams to write their own rules. The analysis did seem objective.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Ten oz

[Eise]

If you do not know who the authors of the Gospels are than you don't know if all the gospels aren't just extrapolations inspired by a lone source. You don't know the source of the information being written. You can't call them independent works done by different people over time because they may all have been inspired by a single source.

 

Of course. The gospels also might be have beamed to Palestine in 0 CE by Scotty from the future.

 

You see, Ten oz, historians work on basis of the available material. They do their best to analyze them, see what they can conclude of them. (The best analysis reveals that the 4 gospels are based on at least 7 sources. Some must have been Arameic, others were directly written in Greek.) Then they fit their possible findings in what they know from this time and place from other sources. You behave like some critics of Galileo: just refuse to look through the telescope. A skeptical approach does not mean not to investigate at all, but don't taking your material as the bare truth.

 

If I would take your extreme skeptical stance then I could also conclude that Julius Caesar did not exist: the coins were put in the ground, all the antique documents, so called 'first eyewitness accounts' included, were put in libraries and archives in the second century, etc. etc. Of course, I have no proof of that, but hey, I don't need it! It is enough to declare the sources unreliable.

 

The question of Jesus' historicity is approached researching the material we have. If we are left with nothing, that will turn out. As with Moses, Krishna, Heracles, ... But if we are left with some positive facts, then we should accept them. It has all not much to do with knowing the actual authorship of the gospels.

 

Ultimately Paul is the most influential figure in the New Testament and he is not an eyewitness to Jesus as a human man. Paul is a witness to the vision of a resurrected Jesus. Paul is most likely the inspiration for all the gospels and he was not an eye witness to a living human Jesus.

 

Paul gives nearly no facts about Jesus. Why should he? He was writing his letters to Christian communities, who needed advice or correction of their theological errors. But Paul gives a few interesting details about his life: e.g. that he went to Jerusalem and met the apostle Peter (Cephas) and the brother of Jesus, James. Funny, Josephus also mentions James as brother of 'Christ'...

 

No, the mythicist method is very simple. Do you find something that points at a historical Jesus? Then just say it was a later insertion by a Christian scribe. Problem solved. Do not look into other ways of trying to establish the reliability. Do not search for other versions of the same text. That is empirical research: just disqualify the observations that do not fit your ideas.

 

@ Willie71, excellent post!!! You make a good point that some historians omit Jesus from discussion out of fear of backlash. Ultimately archeologist and scolars of classical history step aside and allow theologians alone to credit or discredit the bible. To me the method seems sort of like allowing sports teams to write their own rules. The analysis did seem objective.

 

You are close to a conspiracy theory, Ten oz...

 

Lord Raglan had carefully omitted Jesus Christ, not wanting to stir up additional controversy, but Alan Dundes took him on, finding a score of 19 for him. I myself have scored him at 18.5. In fact, he scores so high that some people have called the profile an effort to discredit Jesus Christ's (supposed) historicity

 

 

According to which of the accounts of Jesus' life these points were gotten? Take the following three approaches.

1. Give a point for every similar point found in any source of Jesus' life we have (e.g. this we find in Mark, not Luke, but we have a point; that is not found in Mark, but in Luke, so another point. Or worse: Source 1 says X, Source 2 says not Y, and contradict each other. Great! One point for X and one point for Y!)
2. Give a point for every similar point found that all sources agree upon.
3. Give a point for every similar point found in every one single source. So you get as many scores as you have sources. (e.g. Lukas 13, John 18).

And? What is it worth? What can one conclude from it? That Jesus was made up completely? That some mythical features were added to his life stories later?

 

Sorry, this has nothing to do with science, not applied on this way. In this context, the question if Jesus existed, it is just a silly game.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Eise

[Ten oz]

Of course. The gospels also might be have beamed to Palestine in 0 CE by Scotty from the future.

 

You see, Ten oz, historians work on basis of the available material. They do their best to analyze them, see what they can conclude of them. (The best analysis reveals that the 4 gospels are based on at least 7 sources. Some must have been Arameic, others were directly written in Greek.) Then they fit their possible findings in what they know from this time and place from other sources. You behave like some critics of Galileo: just refuse to look through the telescope. A skeptical approach does not mean not to investigate at all, but don't taking your material as the bare truth.

 

You can't say who they were, what relationship they had to each other, or what influenced them but you do know there was at least 7 independent authors? Because of language and writing style? Historians studying art and literature arent willing to make such empirical statements about the work of known figures like William Shakespeare but theologians make them about the New Testamant. We know many famous works or art whether it's poetry, sculptures, paintings, and etc may be credited to the wrong people or out right forgeries. Style and language alone is not enough to know beyond error the authors were independent. Inspiration and influence transcends language. In the case of the New Testament to conclusion by christian theologians is that Jesus was the influence and not another figure like Paul. Humans lie, edit material, are easily influenced, get confused, and are often wrong. Empirical evidence is more powerful than hints based of style. There is nothing empirical in the bible.

 

Even if we accept the theological view what do we have. John is viewed by most scholars to be the only eyewitness account to Jesus and we have no idea who wrote John. The rest are widely viewed to be second hand accounts. We dont even know who they are second hand accounts of. So thn we turn to the cross references. Pontius Pilate is believed to have been real, Nazareth, and there is a window (not set date) for when Jesus may have lived. That is it. An anonymous eyewitness who is believed to have lived at an undertimened time during an era in a place we believe was real. Not very compelling.

 

As for the conspiracy theory stuff religion vs history vs science is a very contentious thing. Google New Testament and history and you'll get a hundred pages of Christian websites or Athiest blogs. Very few people work in a non partisan manner and many people simply do not want to get consumed by the argument. A scholar either draws a line in the sand like Ehrman, Carrier, Price, Dawkins, etc and wades into battle or avoids it all together. So what we end up with is Christian theologians as the subject matter experts vs the Athiest Jesus myth theorists. For me I am not say either side is right. I am not convinced there was or was not a Jesus. You on the other hand assume that Christian theologians have it all workout. I, however, don't accept their methods. Theologians like Ehrman are not a secular Theologian. He is Christian. He believe Jesus more than mortal. IMO that means he does not provide unbiased theory. And theory is all they have. Not proof. A grave would be proof. A relic saved by his followers from crucifixion would be proof. Contemporary Roman references would be proof. Contemporary Jewish references would be proof.

 

What you have are guess' and hints. You can hint and I can guess at a number someone has written down between 1 and 100 but until the number is revealed who is to say either of our hints and guess' we're of value. Theologians have convinced themselves but ultimately there is not a current method to check if they are right.

[Eise]

Ten oz, I am not giving the theological view. I don't believe in 'the Saviour', the 'son of God' or any of that crap. I don't believe in Jesus' miracles and his resurrection, I don't believe in God. I am an atheist.

Style and language are clear indications that there we at least 7 sources for the gospels. You forget again, that we must base our conclusions on the scriptures we have. Christian and none Christian.

Ehrman is not a believer, he is a historian, an agnosticist. He wrote many critical books about Christian scriptures:

• How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee,
• Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them),
• Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why,
• Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are,
• God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer,
• Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.

Even in the last book he develops a very critical view on Jesus, that most theologians do not like very much.

 

Ehrman is the perfect projection screen for theologians and frustrated atheists. Which is also a hint that he might be right. The unprejudiced researcher always gets it from both sides...

 

Your reference to theologians' points of view is completely beside the point. I don't believe theologians, Ehrman neither. You are building a straw man.

The gospel of John is the latest, because clearly influenced from occurrences after Jesus' death. It is also the most theological gospel (in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it). There is more talk from Jesus about who he himself is than in any other gospel. Just self declarations and miracle stories. No ethical preachings. No mentioning of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. Why do you think?

Edited November 2, 2014 by Eise

[Ten oz]

Excerpts from "How the problem of pain ruined my faith" by Bart Ehrman

 

"For most of my life I was a devout Christian, believing in God, trusting in Christ for salvation, knowing that God was actively involved in this world. During my young adulthood, I was an evangelical, with a firm belief in the Bible as the inspired and inerrant word of God. During those years I had fairly simple but commonly held views about how there can be so much pain and misery in the world."

 

"In my mid 20s, I left the evangelical fold, but I remained a Christian for some twenty yearsa God-believing, sin-confessing, church-going Christian, who no longer held to the inerrancy of Scripture but who did believe that the Bible contained Gods word, trustworthy as the source for theological reflection. And the more I studied the Christian tradition, first as a graduate student in seminary and then as a young scholar teaching biblical studies at universities, the more sophisticated I became in my theological views and in my understanding of the world and our place in it.

Suffering increasingly became a problem for me and my faith. How can one explain all the pain and misery in the world if Godthe creator and redeemer of allis sovereign over it, exercising his will both on the grand scheme and in the daily workings of our lives?"

 

"Eventually, while still a Christian thinker, I came to believe that God himself is deeply concerned with suffering and intimately involved with it. The Christian message, for me, at the time, was that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God to us humans, and that in Jesus we can see how God deals with the world and relates to it. He relates to it, I thought, not by conquering it but by suffering for it. "

 

"About nine or ten years ago I came to realize that I simply no longer believed the Christian message. A large part of my movement away from the faith was driven by my concern for suffering. I simply no longer could hold to the viewwhich I took to be essential to Christian faiththat God was active in the world, that he answered prayer, that he intervened on behalf of his faithful, that he brought salvation in the past and that in the future, eventually in the coming eschaton, he would set to rights all that was wrong, that he would vindicate his name and his people and bring in a good kingdom (either at our deaths or here on earth in a future utopian existence)."

 

"As it turns out, my various wrestlings with the problem have led me, even as an agnostic, back to the Bible, to see how different biblical authors wrestle with this, the greatest of all human questions. The result is my recent book, Gods Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important QuestionWhy We Suffer. My contention is that many of the authors of the Bible are wrestling with just this question: why do people (especially the people of God) suffer? "

 

"My hope in writing the book is certainly not to encourage readers to become agnostic, the path that I took. It is instead to help people think, both about this biggest of all possible questions and about the historically and culturally significant religious responses to it that can be found in the most important book in the history of our civilization."

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/blogalogue/2008/04/why-suffering-is-gods-problem.html

 

 

 

@ Eise, Ehrman is a man who spent the great majority of his life a true believer looking for answers about the world from god in the bible. Lost faith when he couldn't find them but still believes the bible to be the most important book in history. He is a theologian. This is what many theologians are. They are not historians in the classical sense. They are people motivated by faith looking for truth in the bible.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Ten oz

[Eise]

@ Eise, Ehrman is a man who spent the great majority of his life a true believer looking for answers about the world from god in the bible. Lost faith when he couldn't find them but still believes the bible to be the most important book in history. He is a theologian. This is what many theologians are. They are not historians in the classical sense. They are people motivated by faith looking for truth in the bible.

 

So once a theologian, always a theologian? Why do you think so many theologians don't like him?

 

And don't you think the bible is one of the most important books in Western history? Not of course as the book containing the most, and most important truths, but standing at the basis of 20 ages of Christianity?

 

Das Kapital is also a very important book in history. But you don't have to believe its contents for just one sentence to acknowledge that. Aristotle's ideas about physics and biology have been very important in the past. But they were mostly wrong.

 

Ehrman does not believe in the Jesus of the theologians. He believes in the Jesus of history, which is a quite different Jesus than the one of the theologians, and of who we know not much:

• that he was baptised by John the Baptist (whose existence is even more widely confirmed by Josephus than of Jesus himself)
• that he had a brother James
• and that he was crucified under Pilate
• who was probably a apocalyptic preacher, of who many Jews thought that he was the Messiah

That's more or less it. It is not much, but this is more or less what all sources agree on: the gospels, the Pauline epistles, Josephus, and Tacitus. Their mentioning of Jesus fits in the cultural background of Palestine in those days, and the appearing of Christians, first in the East, then in Rome.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Eise

[Ten oz]

So once a theologian, always a theologian? Why do you think so many theologians don't like him?

 

And don't you think the bible is one of the most important books in Western history? Not of course as the book containing the most, and most important truths, but standing at the basis of 20 ages of Christianity?

 

Das Kapital is also a very important book in history. But you don't have to believe its contents for just one sentence to acknowledge that. Aristotle's ideas about physics and biology have been very important in the past. But they were mostly wrong.

 

Ehrman does not believe in the Jesus of the theologians. He believes in the Jesus of history, which is a quite different Jesus than the one of the theologians, and of who we know not much:

 

• that he was baptised by John the Baptist (whose existence is even more widely confirmed by Josephus than of Jesus himself)
• that he had a brother James
• and that he was crucified under Pilate
• who was probably a apocalyptic preacher, of who many Jews thought that he was the Messiah

That's more or less it. It is not much, but this is more or less what all sources agree on: the gospels, the Pauline epistles, Josephus, and Tacitus. Their mentioning of Jesus fits in the cultural background of Palestine in those days, and the appearing of Christians, first in the East, then in Rome.

Ehrman doesn't call the bible important he calls it the most important book in history. It is odd that when I reference Carrier you disregard him as a Jesus myth theorist but then see validity in the work of Ehrman whom by his own words struggles with faith and spent decades searching for answers to life in the bible and still believes the bible to a critical resource. Both Carrier and Ehrman are bibical scholars. Both work outside of mainstream theology.

[Eise]

Ehrman doesn't call the bible important he calls it the most important book in history. It is odd that when I reference Carrier you disregard him as a Jesus myth theorist but then see validity in the work of Ehrman whom by his own words struggles with faith and spent decades searching for answers to life in the bible and still believes the bible to a critical resource. Both Carrier and Ehrman are bibical scholars. Both work outside of mainstream theology.

 

Uhh? The bible being a critical resource? Who said that? Not me, nor Ehrman. It is a resource that must be critically evaluated.

 

I read Carrier's critical review of Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist?', and Ehrman's response. I read Acharya S' The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. It is worthless, really. You see, I read Ehrman, but you treat him the same as the NT: 'Christian source, thus worthless'. Read him, and then say what you think of it.

 

And Ehrman may work 'outside of mainstream theology': but he is in mainstream history. Do you find any criticism of an academic historian that it is not true that Ehrman just gives the general view point of historians?

Edited November 2, 2014 by Eise

[Willie71]

 

 

According to which of the accounts of Jesus' life these points were gotten? Take the following three approaches.

1. Give a point for every similar point found in any source of Jesus' life we have (e.g. this we find in Mark, not Luke, but we have a point; that is not found in Mark, but in Luke, so another point. Or worse: Source 1 says X, Source 2 says not Y, and contradict each other. Great! One point for X and one point for Y!)
2. Give a point for every similar point found that all sources agree upon.
3. Give a point for every similar point found in every one single source. So you get as many scores as you have sources. (e.g. Lukas 13, John 18).

And? What is it worth? What can one conclude from it? That Jesus was made up completely? That some mythical features were added to his life stories later?

 

Sorry, this has nothing to do with science, not applied on this way. In this context, the question if Jesus existed, it is just a silly game.

 

 

My point is that the formula for a messianic figure was in place long before the Jesus story. That makes the historical aspect of the story highly suspect. Whether Jesus actually existed, I see no compelling evidence to support this, but we are relying on hisorical accounts millenia old. I can't say Jesus did not exist as a man, but the gospels were not reporting history. It is fully possible that the messianic story was added after the fact, a stance Price strongly supports through the evolution of the story, a salient point given the first gospel missed the virgin birth, a pretty important part of the myth to miss, no? I don't know if Jesus as a man will ever be proven or disproven.

[Eise]

My point is that the formula for a messianic figure was in place long before the Jesus story.

 

That is of course true. Suffering is of all ages, and the longing for the end of it too, including somebody who ends it (from Jesus to Hitler), whoever.

 

That makes the historical aspect of the story highly suspect.

 

Yeah, right again. But you must separate between all the stories told about Jesus, and if there actually existed a person about which these stories were told. As you can read in my previous posting, the historians leave not much of the messianic, miracle stories about Jesus.

 

Whether Jesus actually existed, I see no compelling evidence to support this, but we are relying on hisorical accounts millenia old.

 

Yes, and these historical accounts are the only we have. Do we investigate them, in their historical context, or do we throw away them beforehand? What would the scientific stance be, according to you?

 

It is fully possible that the messianic story was added after the fact,

 

Possible, yes. But Christianity has a problem here. In the Jewish belief the Messiah was a man of Power, either the right hand of God, or a King like David, a kind of war king, freeing the Jews from oppression. But Jesus was crucified, by the occupants, the Romans. It is very unlikely that Jews would make up a story about a crucified Messiah. So it is highly probable that it was an undeniable fact that Jesus was crucified. Crucification just doesn't fit in any of the previous existing theologies, so Christians had to reinterpret what a messiah was, to get the message over.

 

a salient point given the first gospel missed the virgin birth, a pretty important part of the myth to miss, no?

 

It is an important part of the myth, but this time it can easily explained. The Hebrew word for 'virgin' aslo means just maid, young woman. Just take the translation you like (wow, a mystical birth), and you are on the way making a messiah of Jesus.

 

I don't know if Jesus as a man will ever be proven or disproven.

 

Proven? Never. We only have a few resources. But who knows, a few more will be discovered. It already happened last century, old papyrus scriptures, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Gospel of Thomas, discovered in a grave in Egypt. But a definite proof, no, never.

 

But our conclusion should be the most probable. And there the historians have something to say.

[Willie71]

 

That is of course true. Suffering is of all ages, and the longing for the end of it too, including somebody who ends it (from Jesus to Hitler), whoever.

 

 

Yeah, right again. But you must separate between all the stories told about Jesus, and if there actually existed a person about which these stories were told. As you can read in my previous posting, the historians leave not much of the messianic, miracle stories about Jesus.

 

 

Yes, and these historical accounts are the only we have. Do we investigate them, in their historical context, or do we throw away them beforehand? What would the scientific stance be, according to you?

 

I believe we go where the evidence takes us.

 

Possible, yes. But Christianity has a problem here. In the Jewish belief the Messiah was a man of Power, either the right hand of God, or a King like David, a kind of war king, freeing the Jews from oppression. But Jesus was crucified, by the occupants, the Romans. It is very unlikely that Jews would make up a story about a crucified Messiah. So it is highly probable that it was an undeniable fact that Jesus was crucified. Crucification just doesn't fit in any of the previous existing theologies, so Christians had to reinterpret what a messiah was, to get the message over.

 

Youy lost me here, part of the messianic myth is the virgin birth, mysterious childhood, returning to lead his people, falling out of favour, being a martyr, dying, descending into hell (jesus disn't), and being resurrected three days later to return to the heavenly kingdom. The story is not in contradiction to the messianic myth, but a near perfect example of it.

 

 

It is an important part of the myth, but this time it can easily explained. The Hebrew word for 'virgin' aslo means just maid, young woman. Just take the translation you like (wow, a mystical birth), and you are on the way making a messiah of Jesus.

 

Is it a misquote, or making Jesus fit the myth better, as many other hero or messianic figures were half god, half human and the product of a virgin birth.

 

Proven? Never. We only have a few resources. But who knows, a few more will be discovered. It already happened last century, old papyrus scriptures, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Gospel of Thomas, discovered in a grave in Egypt. But a definite proof, no, never.

 

But our conclusion should be the most probable. And there the historians have something to say.

 

I would love to learn more. I have been interested in this topic since my teens, and from what I have looked at I am unaware of any robust confirmation of a historical Jesus, as numerous other historical documents fail to mention him. Not proof, but important. If I am wronbg on this, I am open to being corrected.

 

 

 

Re: other messianic figures. Listverse is a convenient way to address this. This is not my "sourse" of information, but there is a lot of verification of these stories in other literature. Its just easier to use the premade list in this case. I can provide much more robust information oif needed.

 

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

 

 

Romulus is born of a vestal virgin, which was a priestess of the hearth god Vesta sworn to celibacy. His mother claims that the divine impregnated her, yet this is not believed by the King. Romulus and his twin brother, Remus, are tossed in the river and left for dead. (A “slaughter of the innocents” tale which parallels that of Matthew 2:13-16). Romulus is hailed as the son of god. He is “snatched away to heaven” by a whirlwind (It is assumed that the gods took him), and he makes post mortem appearances. In his work Numa Pompilius, Plutarch records that there was a darkness covering the earth before his death (Just as there was during Jesus’ death according to Mark 15:33). He also states that Romulus is to be know afterwards as ‘Quirinus’; A god which belonged to the Archiac Triad (a “triple deity” similar to the concept of the Trinity).

 

 

Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles. He “rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.” He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine. He was called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.” He was considered the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.” He was identified with the Ram or Lamb. His sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or “Young Man of the Tree” intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified.

 

 

Zoroaster was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.” He was baptized in a river. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He began his ministry at age 30. Zoroaster baptized with water, fire and “holy wind.” He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. He had a sacred cup or grail. He was slain. His religion had a eucharist. He was the “Word made flesh.” Zoroaster’s followers expected a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 AD and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.

 

 

Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. He was both the Divine Son and the Father. On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth. He descended into the underworld. After three days, Attis was resurrected.

 

 

Born of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus’ mother “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” An angel tells Jesus’ father to: “Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.” Break in life history: No data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.

 

 

There are many more similar messianic stories. Even modern stories such as Anakin Skywalker are based on this story. Lord of the Rings has elements of it. Jesus was not a departure from the story, but his story evolved to better capture the imagination of the tribes that already believed in this pagan myth. It united people, who alredy believed the story.

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.

 

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.

 

 

It is changing. The Pontification Council has admitted the stories of the old testament are not historical events. The method to salvation is what is now important to them.

 

http://vaticanfiles.org/tag/inerrancy/

 

 

The document attempts to reaffirm and expand on what Dei Verbum highlights. The truth of the Bible is affirmed but is related to the “project of salvation” (3), the “salvific plan” (4), and “our salvation” (63). The detailed biblical overview on the truth of Scripture is understood as limiting the inerrancy of the text to its soteriological purpose. As for the rest, “in the Bible we encounter contradictions, historical inaccuracies, unlikely accounts, and in the Old Testament there are precepts and commands that are in conflict with the teaching of Jesus” (104). More specifically, the Abrahamic narratives are considered more as interpretations than historical facts (107), the crossing the Red Sea is more interested in actualizing the Exodus than reporting its original events (108), most of the book of Joshua has little historical value (127), and Jonah’s story is an imaginary account (110). In the New Testament, the reference to the earthquake in the passion’s narratives is a “literary motif” rather than a historical report (120). More generally, the Gospels have a normative value in affirming Jesus’ identity but their historical references have a “subordinate function” (123): in other words, the theology of the Gospels is valid, but their historical reliability is less important. How the two aspects can be neatly distinguished is not explained. In the end the truth of the Bible is “restricted” to what it says about salvation (105).

Another section of the document deals with the “ethical and social issues” raised by the alleged truth of the Bible, e.g. the theme of violence and the place of women. The hard and “offensive” texts of Scripture (e.g. the conquest narratives and the imprecatory Psalms) are not read in Catholic services due to “pastoral sensitivity” (125). According to the document, how can they be the Word of God is difficult to say. Again, the standard criterion to discern the inerrancy of the text is to “look at what it says about God and men’s salvation” (136) leaving the rest to the historical-critical readings and cultural sensibilities of the time. In a telling final statement, the document says that “the goal of the truth of Scripture is the salvation of believers” (144). The implication is that the Bible says beyond salvation (however defined) is not to be taken as necessarily true in the same sense.

[Robittybob1]

Re: other messianic figures. Listverse is a convenient way to address this. This is not my "sourse" of information, but there is a lot of verification of these stories in other literature. Its just easier to use the premade list in this case. I can provide much more robust information oif needed.

 

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are many more similar messianic stories. Even modern stories such as Anakin Skywalker are based on this story. Lord of the Rings has elements of it. Jesus was not a departure from the story, but his story evolved to better capture the imagination of the tribes that already believed in this pagan myth. It united people, who alredy believed the story.

 

 

It is changing. The Pontification Council has admitted the stories of the old testament are not historical events. The method to salvation is what is now important to them.

 

http://vaticanfiles.org/tag/inerrancy/

 

Even if the story of Jesus parallels many other stories that in no way means that Jesus is false. I reject your argument even if it seemed extensive the logic behind it must be faulty. Each tale must pass or fail on its own merits.

[imatfaal]

Even if the story of Jesus parallels many other stories that in no way means that Jesus is false. I reject your argument even if it seemed extensive the logic behind it must be faulty. Each tale must pass or fail on its own merits.

 

I think it does provide good grounds to doubt the bible story. Either the bible story is fact (with greater or lesser additions of fiction for effect) or it is fiction (with possible truths dropped in for verisimilitude); these are competing hypotheses - if one is true then the other is not. I say it is fiction - and to bolster that claim I show that the jesus story shares common tropes with other stories that cannot (at the same time as the bible) be true. There are many reasons why my assertion may not be true and that could be used to argue against that particular claim of evidence - but it is persuasive to an extent.

 

As an example - if I told a story to explain some action in my past but my friends and family told a different version you might struggle to know who to believe; you just don't have enough facts or insight. However, if my story mirrored that of a character in a popular and current domestic soap opera you would surely assume I was fibbing.

[Willie71]

Even if the story of Jesus parallels many other stories that in no way means that Jesus is false. I reject your argument even if it seemed extensive the logic behind it must be faulty. Each tale must pass or fail on its own merits.

 

My question becomes, why did God send so many versions of his son to be born of a virgin, to be later crucified, and be resurrected three days later to save humanity? Wouldn't once be enough?

 

One could question if they were really the same God? If they aren't the trinity has competition. If they are false stories, how do we know which one is the real God and Son of Man? Since some of the stories are basically identical, how can one truly decide which is the real one? None have compelling historical evidence to point to "this is the one that really lived." What if the early church used the name Zoraster instead of Jesus, then our major world religion would have been Zorastianity, not Christianity.

 

The term Christ was a a translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah to Greek, Which was Christos. It wasn't the name of a live person, but a symbolic name that has been later assigned as a "Christian" or last name.

 

I don't like Wikipidia, but its accessible to a lot of people:

 

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

 

 

A Christian ( pronunciation (help·info)) is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christós (Χριστός), a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term mashiach

Edited November 4, 2014 by Willie71

[Eise]

Youy lost me here, part of the messianic myth is the virgin birth, mysterious childhood, returning to lead his people, falling out of favour, being a martyr, dying, descending into hell (jesus disn't), and being resurrected three days later to return to the heavenly kingdom. The story is not in contradiction to the messianic myth, but a near perfect empxale of it.

 

According to which Gospel? Mark, the oldest Gospel, says nothing about Jesus birth about a virgin birth. Neither does John, the latest that was accepted as authoritative. So do we give Jesus a point on that?

 

And why would it not be possible that messianic elements were added afterwards?

 

Is it a misquote, or making Jesus fit the myth better, as many other hero or messianic figures were half god, half human and the product of a virgin birth.

 

Why would that be an either/or? And again, why could that not be added afterwards?

 

I would love to learn more. I have been interested in this topic since my teens, and from what I have looked at I am unaware of any robust confirmation of a historical Jesus, as numerous other historical documents fail to mention him. Not proof, but important. If I am wronbg on this, I am open to being corrected.

 

I already said that we will never have real prove if Jesus existed. So no 'robust confirmation'. But, as you say 'we go where the evidence takes us', or I would say 'we go where we have the most probable assumption'. Why would failing documents would be a proof that he did not exist? Do you know of any document where Jesus should have been mentioned?

 

There are many more similar messianic stories. Even modern stories such as Anakin Skywalker are based on this story. Lord of the Rings has elements of it. Jesus was not a departure from the story, but his story evolved to better capture the imagination of the tribes that already believed in this pagan myth. It united people, who alredy believed the story.

 

Yes, I already said that. Suffering people long for a saviour, a messiah. So why should Jesus not been molded into one?

 

It seems to me that you make the same methodological errors as Ten oz: it is obvious that the NT has a history, and historians are able to derive a few things from that. Differences or similarities in style, passages that must be originally written in Arameic, others that clearly are added later in Greek, differences and similarities in the exact wordings of some stories, etc etc. Then the probability that Jews would start to believe in a humiliated and executed messiah, the fact that Paul describes that he met Peter and Jesus' brother James, and the fact that Josephus also mentions James as brother of Jesus, the fact that Josephus also mentions John the Baptist, the fact that nobody in antiquity disputed the fact that Jesus existed, the quick rising from Christianity...

My question becomes, why did God send so many versions of his son to be born of a virgin, to be later crucified, and be resurrected three days later to save humanity? Wouldn't once be enough?

 

That is a theological argument, and therefore has no value in the question if a person Jesus, on who these stories go back, really existed.

 

One could question if they were really the same God? If they aren't the trinity has competition. If they are false stories, how do we know which one is the real God and Son of Man? Since some of the stories are basically identical, how can one truly decide which is the real one?

 

Besides that this is a theological argument again, why should one decide ,which is the real story'? Why not just do research on the sources, on the context and time in which the stories arose, and then draw your conclusions? And again: why would it be impossible that all these magical stories were added afterwards?

 

The term Christ was a a translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah to Greek, Which was Christos. It wasn't the name of a live person, but a symbolic name that has been later assigned as a "Christian" or last name.

 

And what is the relevance? Because Jesus was called messiah, i.e. Christos, he did not exist? Did Julius Caesar not exist because Caesar just means 'emperor'? And that Buddha means 'enlightened one' is also a proof that he did not exist?

Edited November 4, 2014 by Eise

[Ten oz]

@ Eise, Mark is the oldest Gospel. Who wrote it?

I suppose that is a rhetorical question since no ones knows and you have already said that the author isn't relevant.

When you say historians can find history in the NT I assume you mean Theologians? They are the ones, "historians" , looking for history in the bible.

[Eise]

@ Eise, Mark is the oldest Gospel. Who wrote it?

I suppose that is a rhetorical question since no ones knows and you have already said that the author isn't relevant.

 

Yes, I said it, and yes, it is not relevant.

 

When you say historians can find history in the NT I assume you mean Theologians? They are the ones, "historians" , looking for history in the bible.

 

Are you such a bad reader??? I did not say they find truth in the NT, but in the history of the NT. So it is not about the question if Jesus healed a blind man, but how the story is written.

Is it exactly the same wording as in another gospel? Then one might have copied it from the other, or they copied it from the same source.

Is the Greek funny, but does it make sense when it was originally written in Aramaic? Then it probably originally was Aramaic, and must stem from Palestine, not from the surrounding countries.

Does a misunderstanding only make sense in Greek? Then it was surely later added.

 

Etc etc.

 

And no, stop your insinuations about theologians. You know your assumption 'you mean Theologians' is false. No academic historian has contradicted Ehrman that he describes the consensus of what historians think about Jesus' existence.

 

Read Ehrman, see if that is a theologian defending his belief, and then come back.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Eise

[Willie71]

According to which Gospel? Mark, the oldest Gospel, says nothing about Jesus birth about a virgin birth. Neither does John, the latest that was accepted as authoritative. So do we give Jesus a point on that?

 

And why would it not be possible that messianic elements were added afterwards?

 

My argument is that the story evolved into the messiah story over time. Elements were added as each book was added to the canon.

 

 

Why would that be an either/or? And again, why could that not be added afterwards?

 

It was added afterwards. There is plenty of evidence for that. Now, whether there was a real man named Jesus to me at least, becomes irrelevant. One could have picked any "prophet" worthy figure, and evolve the story over time. There are two debates, whether Jesus, as portrayed in the bible exists, or if there was a man, or a few men, who were used to represent the story. If that man existed, what spiritual relevance would be associated with him? A common myth was weaved into his biography, which very was very unlikely to have any historical congruity, as age, year of death etc was predetermined by the story. Jesus could not have lived under Horus, the census, and destruction of the temple. There is a 70 year gap in the timeline. People do not worship the man, they worship the salvation story.

 

 

I already said that we will never have real prove if Jesus existed. So no 'robust confirmation'. But, as you say 'we go where the evidence takes us', or I would say 'we go where we have the most probable assumption'. Why would failing documents would be a proof that he did not exist? Do you know of any document where Jesus should have been mentioned?

 

I prefer to say "we don't know" than to assume. If I had to make an assumption, based on my knowledge of urban myths, word of mouth stories, it is unlikely that there is a real person that inspired the story. The first gospel actually sets the stage in the metaphysical plane, not on the earth. Tough to be a real man in the metaphysical plane.

 

Yes, I already said that. Suffering people long for a saviour, a messiah. So why should Jesus not been molded into one?

 

It seems to me that you make the same methodological errors as Ten oz: it is obvious that the NT has a history, and historians are able to derive a few things from that. Differences or similarities in style, passages that must be originally written in Arameic, others that clearly are added later in Greek, differences and similarities in the exact wordings of some stories, etc etc. Then the probability that Jews would start to believe in a humiliated and executed messiah, the fact that Paul describes that he met Peter and Jesus' brother James, and the fact that Josephus also mentions James as brother of Jesus, the fact that Josephus also mentions John the Baptist, the fact that nobody in antiquity disputed the fact that Jesus existed, the quick rising from Christianity...

 

I'm not sure where this certainty comes from. I certainly have read a lot of historians that question, or outright deny that any reliable evidence exists for Jesus being a man who lived the 30 year period in the area, as outlined in the bible. In fact, many note that he would have had to live over 70 years to be present at events as outlined in the "history" of the new testament.

 

That is a theological argument, and therefore has no value in the question if a person Jesus, on who these stories go back, really existed.

 

Its also a logical argument. Just like is there a real person who was Santa Claus? It started with a Coca Cola ad compaign (debated of course), but has been attributed to a saint.

 

 

Besides that this is a theological argument again, why should one decide ,which is the real story'? Why not just do research on the sources, on the context and time in which the stories arose, and then draw your conclusions? And again: why would it be impossible that all these magical stories were added afterwards?

 

One has to decide if its the story that people value, or the man who did not do the things in the story.

 

 

And what is the relevance? Because Jesus was called messiah, i.e. Christos, he did not exist? Did Julius Caesar not exist because Caesar just means 'emperor'? And that Buddha means 'enlightened one' is also a proof that he did not exist?

 

It seems quite reasonable to see that the person becomes quite irrelevant, when its the story that has meaning for people.

 

Not being difficult, I am curious why you are so interested in whether the person Jesus existed, when you acknowledge that the story is not real. If youy were unsure if the myth was real, the pursuit of this verification makes sense to me. To me its like looking for the model who played Santa in the Coke commercial as being important to verify something about the history of the Santa myth. It changes nothing in terms of believability or historicity of the myth. Whether there was a warrior that inspired Hercules, or Zeus, or Mythra seems unimportant to the myth. Who inspired Anakin Skywalker? Does that person lend credence to the force? I am not being sarcastic or dismissive. I am genuinely curious to understand your reason.

 

Edited November 4, 2014 by Willie71

[Robittybob1]

 

My question becomes, why did God send so many versions of his son to be born of a virgin, to be later crucified, and be resurrected three days later to save humanity? Wouldn't once be enough?

 

One could question if they were really the same God? If they aren't the trinity has competition. If they are false stories, how do we know which one is the real God and Son of Man? Since some of the stories are basically identical, how can one truly decide which is the real one? None have compelling historical evidence to point to "this is the one that really lived." What if the early church used the name Zoraster instead of Jesus, then our major world religion would have been Zorastianity, not Christianity.

 

The term Christ was a a translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah to Greek, Which was Christos. It wasn't the name of a live person, but a symbolic name that has been later assigned as a "Christian" or last name.

 

I don't like Wikipidia, but its accessible to a lot of people:

 

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

 

"how can one truly decide which is the real one?" It is a good question, and I have been of the view we will know which one was true when we get to see the signs and wonders. But it was a little slow on that front too, but I do have a few stories that I share. In the end I'm convinced.

[Eise]

"how can one truly decide which is the real one?" It is a good question, and I have been of the view we will know which one was true when we get to see the signs and wonders. But it was a little slow on that front too, but I do have a few stories that I share. In the end I'm convinced.

 

No, it is not a good question. It supposes that at least one of the stories is true. Only some kind of believer can make such a statement. A historian can't.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Eise

[Robittybob1]

 

No, it is not a good question. It supposes that at least one of the stories is true. Only some kind of believer can make such a statement. A historian can't.

Maybe that was the reason it is like that. Jesus has been quoted saying words to that effect. OK it worries me a bit was it not his intentions not to "save " everyone. What did he have against historians?

[recursion]

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

 

I personally believe he was real and I see no real evidence to suggest the contrary. I think every prophet was real, and the effect they had was possible, although impossible without the guidance of greater intelligence. However, I think what's most important is the effect he had, the story he told, and what he represents, adding to our vocabulary of existential phenomena (he was the living truth).

[Hendrick Laursen]

Though Jesus was a real person [i'm not to debate this now]

The oldest Gospel isn't Mark's, it is the oldest surviving one, which won't make it the oldest. It was written years after Jesus.

[Ten oz]

no, like I've said in the one of similar treads I am sure that there wasn't a physical person.just a legend

You are sure? I personally think it is unclear. What specifically makes you sure?