• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Historical Jesus

TheERK

Thinker
T
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
174
The point of this thread is to get a serious opinion concerning the 'Historical Jesus' from people who have actually done some reading on the topic.

No gut reactions, please.

Also, this is an issue I am totally undecided on; I have heard decent arguments from both sides.
 
TheERK said:
The point of this thread is to get a serious opinion concerning the 'Historical Jesus' from people who have actually done some reading on the topic.
Click to expand...

IF there was an historical Jesus - his life is completely lost in the myths grown around him.

IF the Sayings of Jesus (Quelle) are all that is left from people who may have known him - he is an average sage teaching nothing new or radical.

The earliest writings - Paul's letters - do not speak of an historical Jesus. They speak of a spiritual Jesus. (I believe Paul was a Gnostic writing about the dying god-man of the mystery religions - except reformatted with a Jewish hero.)

The earliest Gospel - Mark - begins when Jesus is in his 30s - spins some miracles - and ends with an empty grave (Mk 16:8)

The next two Gospels - Matthew and Luke - spin more outlandish scenarios (virgin birth, body resurrection, etc).

We cannot see the historical Jesus through the layers - so in a way it doesn't matter if there was an historical Jesus or not.
 
Hi TheERK...

I would suggest reading "A Marginal Jew" by John P. Meier. He looks at the available sources on Jesus' life to see what a "reasonable person" could "know" about the historical Jesus. He sets up his criteria beforehand (using methods that are widely accepted by historians in general) and examines the data in light of those criteria. The upshot, from what I've read, is that we can know quite a bit about Jesus' life and teachings, but there are still large areas that we can't "know" about in a critical historical sense. Some examples: He probably did teach about the "kingdom of God", his teaching and personality probably really rubbed the Jewish authorities the wrong way, he was probably baptized by John. Things we can't know about are items such as the virgin birth -- the data for that doesn't meet enough of the criteria, and so in a critical sense one can't say anything one way or the other about it.

Layers can be "peeled back" just as they are when examining the life of any historical figure.

If you're really interested in the subject, I'd recommend reading this book. I've finished the first volume, and will hopefully be getting the second volume for Christmas.
 
Hi PotatoStew - there are a couple of things you wrote I disagree with.

I would suggest reading "A Marginal Jew" by John P. Meier. He looks at the available sources on Jesus' life to see what a "reasonable person" could "know" about the historical Jesus.
Click to expand...

I reject the entire paragraph supposedly written by Josephus. The Testimonium Flavianum is a blatent insertion. Meier uses this as a source. In my opinion, he is now off in the weeds. The only sources one can use to 'know' the historical Jesus are the Gospels - and they disagree with each other.

The upshot, from what I've read, is that we can know quite a bit about Jesus' life and teachings...
Click to expand...

We can't know anything about his life (if he existed) that isn't 3rd generation heresay. The only link to his teachings are the Sayings of Jesus (Q) - a small core of wisdom lessons.

He probably did teach about the "kingdom of God",
Click to expand...

As did many wandering sages in that time. Don't forget the area was loaded with these people proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom of God and the end of this world.

Things we can't know about are items such as the virgin birth -- the data for that doesn't meet enough of the criteria, and so in a critical sense one can't say anything one way or the other about it.
Click to expand...

I can state without reservation - there has never been a 'virgin birth'. The reference in Isaiah, which bungling Matthew attempted to translate, refers to a 'young woman' not a virgin. Moreover, the reference is to the King's wife - not a future messiah. Virgin births are a common feature of mystery religion dying god-men.

I can state without reservation there has never been a miracle. Why do xian miracles warrent notice while other reported miracles are myths or the work of Satan? To believe in miracles is to suspend belief in reality.

I can state without reservation there has never been a 'bodily' resurrection. The entire xian religion is based on this "fact" and it is mistaken.

After all this - what do we 'know' of Jesus? Nothing.
 
Triad boy

You were faster than me I wanted to ask you how you exclude Josephus and Tacitus who make the only "external" references to the man that was called Jesus.

Could please expand on why you reject those sources?
 
theERK :

This is what I think.

The sources we have about Jesus pose the following problems:

  • There is no way to verify the historicity of any single incident related in the gospels.
  • There is no way to verify the authenticity of any single saying attributed to him
  • We cannot identify the truth of any given verse in the gospels

If we tried to extract a bottom line from the four gospels this would be that according to the Gospels, Jesus was a miracle man who had the talent to attract large crowds of people with his speeches and that he had a dedicated group of followers or disciples.

"Jesus Era" coincides with an Era in which Judaism experienced tensions that led to a diversity of schools and sects within it. Josephus' testimony again is valuable.The Pharissees, the Sadduces and the Essenes are the most well known Jewish sects of the time.

I tend to accept the theory that Jesus, as John the Baptist, was a "monk" of the sect of the Essenes. Essenes didn't appear during the"era of Jesus" . In fact they constituted the oldest of the Jewish sects but in that era we notice a revival of their movement.

I also accept that they must have been many wandering "holly" men around the area of Judea but this man and his sect, "The sect of Jesus" managed to make a difference or to become the most serious threat to the status quo of the temple that's why he survived in the memories of non-"christian" testimonies.

So, talking about the historical Jesus in the Christian terms is kind of ridiculous but it's very difficult to dismiss the idea that somebody existed indeed. Even if nobody existed we must feel nothing but admiration for those who built Christianity. From all the theories I know it's the only one who survives for 2000 years now.
 
Cleopatra said:
From all the theories I know it's the only one who survives for 2000 years now. [/B]
Click to expand...
Different (and older religions) have existed for more than 2000 years.

Longevity isn't evidence of anything but longevity. To read anything else into "well it's been around a long time" is just silly.
 
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcse_his.htm has some sources for this, but I honestly don't care.

Whatever the truth is (assuming it could be proven), if it isn't aligned with a church doctrine of whatever sect, that sect will reject it and continue to teach whatever lies* it likes.

After all, with all of these christian churches and sects, they can't all be telling the truth. If it isn't truth, it's B.S.

Nor can all of the churches, temples, etc. sects of all religions all be correct.

Of course, with churches, we can redefine "truth" to mean "what we say", so facts don't matter when discussing them with the religiously afflicted.

The safest bet is that they're all probably at least partially wrong, and likely very, very wrong on many important points.

If a particular sect believed "Jesus is a magical invisible half-frog, half man that floats through the air and grants good wishes as he sees fit.", any fact that discounted half-frog or invisibility would be heresy.

So go ahead and make up any story you like. It will be no less wrong or accepted or rejected than any other opinion based on study and archaeological science.


*There's a difference between speaking out of simple ignorance and lying. Consciously deciding to ignore other information, and tell only the version of reality you want other people to believe in is lying by any definition of lying that means anything. Naturally, given the religiously afflicted tendency to treacherously redefine simple terms, lying is only disagreeing with a religious authority.
 
wert said:
Different (and older religions) have existed for more than 2000 years.

Longevity isn't evidence of anything but longevity. To read anything else into "well it's been around a long time" is just silly.
Click to expand...

Could you please list me a couple of theories that have survived in the western world for such a long time?

The longevity of Christianity shows that that this particular theory gives satisfying answers to the majority of people whether you like it or not.
 
Cleopatra said:


Could you please list me a couple of theories that have survived in the western world for such a long time?
Click to expand...

Astrology
Witches
 
Cleopatra said:
Could you please list me a couple of theories that have survived in the western world for such a long time?
Click to expand...
Did I say "western" world?

Strawman.

If you gave it any thought, you'd know that Hinduism is older than x-ianity and persists into our current world. And for many, Hinduism gives people "satisfying answers". From your statements, it's obvious you feel that popularity of a belief is a strong harbinger for the credibility of said belief.

The longevity of Christianity shows that that this particular theory gives satisfying answers to the majority of people whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...
Longevity means longevity.

Longevity means little from from an evidence seeking viewpoint. If so, we'd have to give credence to the notion that the earth is flat and revolves around the sun. For after all, wasn't that notion one that had longevity? Or how about the ancient beliefs of the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, and the Norse? They had quite a bit of "longevity" also. Are you saying that their God-men and beliefs are somehow less credible simply because those beliefs have been overtaken by newer (and IMHO equally unsupportable) beliefs? bleh.


And talk of a "Majority" of people only shows your willingness to fallaciously (and ignorantly) rely on appeals to popularity.

As such, don't mind me if I find your "conclusions" to be lacking.
 
wert said:
Did I say "western" world?
Click to expand...

No you didn't say it. I asked you and I repeat the question.

Since it's relevant I reply here to geni too:

Astrology and witches are not a cult. Astrology in particular is an Art.

[Longevity means longevity.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much :) The point is to interpret why Christianity lasted that long.

Longevity means little from from an evidence seeking viewpoint.
Click to expand...

True. I didn't claim that but I won't start screamming "strawman-strawman" it's very passe...

If so, we'd have to give credence to the notion that the earth is flat and revolves around the sun. For after all, wasn't that notion one that had longevity? Or how about the ancient beliefs of the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, and the Norse? They had quite a bit of "longevity" also. Are you saying that their God-men and beliefs are somehow less credible simply because those beliefs have been overtaken by newer (and IMHO equally unsupportable) beliefs? bleh.
Click to expand...

Bleh indeed. All the above is dismissed as a typical example of ignorance exhibited by an atheist. You don't reply to what I said you just play your old broken record.

And talk of a "Majority" of people only shows your willingness to fallaciously (and ignornantly) rely on appeals to popularity.
Click to expand...

You don't have anything to say. So, how do you interpret the fact that Christianity lasts for 2000 years now? Do you have any explanation? Wait! I am not interested. You are a fanatic.

As such, don't mind me if I find your "conclusions" to be lacking.
Click to expand...

As I said I am not very much interested in your pre-canned beliefs either.

You jump into a thread you have nothing to contribute on the subject only to recite your poem. I refuse to play the role of your audience.
 
Cleopatra said:

Astrology and witches are not a cult. Astrology in particular is an Art.
Click to expand...

So I have to find a cult that has lasted 2000 years of being attacked by one of the most powerful religions on the planet (any cult in europe is going to have to have survived that)?

This may take some time but I think the best bet is some of the siberian shaministic stuff.
 
It will be hard to find a long-lasting cult since, by definition, a cult is just a religion without political power.
 
Cleopatra said:
No you didn't say it. I asked you and I repeat the question.

Since it's relevant I reply here to geni too:
Click to expand...
No, that's simply changing the topic. My original post is there. No need to repeat it. Nice try though. :)

Thank you very much :) The point is to interpret why Christianity lasted that long.
Click to expand...
Then ask yourself why Hinduism has lasted so long.

True. I didn't claim that but I won't start screamming "strawman-strawman" it's very passe...
Click to expand...
A passé strawman is still a strawman. And it's still logically insupportable. Next.


Bleh indeed. All the above is dismissed as a typical example of ignorance exhibited by an atheist. You don't reply to what I said you just play your old broken record.
Click to expand...
Ah, how do you know I'm an atheist? Ignorance is often defined by those who jump to conclusions without an ounce of evidence. Seems you might (just might!) fall into that category.

Fallacious logic is fallacious logic no matter who uses it and in whatever context. If you can't use logic, I have little use for you.


You don't have anything to say. So, how do you interpret the fact that Christianity lasts for 2000 years now?
Click to expand...
It means nothing to me. No more than the fact that Hinduism has lasted longer or that several of the ancient religions also outlasted x-ianity. It's plain dumb (not to mention indisputably fallacious) to base credibility on longevity or popularity.

Do you have any explanation? Wait! I am not interested. You are a fanatic.
Click to expand...
Hm, Ad-hominen now. No surprises there. I guess you're attempting to see how much illogic you can fit into each post?

If so, kudos for your success in such endeavors. :)

As I said I am not very much interested in your pre-canned beliefs either.
Click to expand...
Strange, I don't think I recall ever stating what my beliefs are.

Though I do get a kick out of being chided for supposedly following "pre-canned beliefs" from someone who obviously does just that. (X-ianity anyone?)

You jump into a thread you have nothing to contribute on the subject only to recite your poem.
Click to expand...
Wow! Now I'm accused of poetry! I bet my old English H.S. teacher never thought we'd see that day. ;)

I refuse to play the role of your audience.
Click to expand...
Fine by me. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom