So what really happened 2000 years ago?

[DrBaltar]

I'm an atheist because errors in the bible caused me to question religion, and at least since the Big Bang, the universe seems to operate basically according to natural laws. I could see how when these errors were pointed out, people irrationally ignored evidence to the contrary, which I thought was troubling. I extrapolated this behavior to all people who are religious and see it reinforced time and time again. Given the track record of the unexplained eventually becoming explained by science, I'm willing to presume there is a natural explanation for things we cannot yet explain rather than to invoke a deity.

To other atheists out there, my question is about the pseudo-history told in the bible about Jesus. What do you think actually happened? Why did Jesus believe he was God's illegitimate son, and why did people believe him? What were the motives of the people who recorded the events of Jesus' life?

In my mind, this is how I see it happening, and this is all just guesses based on pieces I've heard and trying to reconcile my belief that there is no God with the fact that something happened that got people all excited back then. Possibilities I can think of are that the three astrologically-minded men noted the appearance of the star of Bethlehem (which I believe was attributed somewhere to the conjunction of Venus, Jupiter and the star Rigel). They followed it until they found Bethlehem and happened upon Mary who was giving birth. Mary perhaps had an affair and became impregnated, so she was willing to go along with "God did it" to appease her husband.

This kind of beginning planted the seed in Jesus' mind that there was something special about himself. So he grew up believing God was his daddy and formed a connection with his imaginary friend. Then there was this other crackpot who's probably been hanging around in the desert too long who hooked up with Jesus. He thought Jesus was groovy and was impressed with Jesus' birth story as well, so he started preaching to others about him. Jesus began to truly believe he was the bastard son of God and also started preaching. Or something...

But what about these miracles like turning water into wine, healing people, walking on water? Are these stories people made up about him? Was he a scam artist? A magician? Were these stories made up later?

I've heard that his disciples were actually quite young? Maybe teenagers? No offense to any teenagers out there, but they can come up with quite a load of BS. I've also heard that they didn't write their stories in the bible until they were quite old. Possibly the stories have grown more and more elaborate as they told and retold their stories until they were finally written down?

Who's this Mary Magdalene chick? If she was such a follower of Jesus, or maybe even his wife, and was there for the execution, why didn't she recognize Jesus at first after the 'resurrection'? That's suspicious.

I've read that there were dissenting views and accounts of what happened that were simply not included in the bible. Perhaps they told the more ordinary story of what actually happened, and are now long gone. Or do they exist somewhere and are known by a few? The Jews were there too, yet think he was just some guy. What do they know about it?

 

[boloboffin]

Well, according to the Bible, the three wise men showed up when Jesus was around two years old. They tell Herod when the star appeared, and based on that, Herod kills all the kids two years old and under. That's according to Matthew and assuming, of course, that the star appeared when Jesus was born.

ETA: Oh, and to the point, I think the only decent case to be made for historicity to the story is that this guy Jesus, probably associated with the John the Baptist movement, did some "miracles," got some people together, made a splash at Jerusalem one Passover, and got crucified by the Romans. It's fun to speculate on what personalities might actually have existed but that's all it is. I do like the notion that Judas' suicide was invented to explain why this body showed up in a field after Jesus was resurrected, but that's just me being a blasphemer.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Well, according to the Bible, the three wise men showed up when Jesus was around two years old.

No GPS, no Fodor's guide, the few street signs all in a foreign language, do you blame them? I mean, now fast can a camel go?

They tell Herod when the star appeared, and based on that, Herod kills all the kids two years old and under. That's according to Matthew and assuming, of course, that the star appeared when Jesus was born.

Picked a bad week to start changing diapers.

OT: my latest Nat Geo has a great article on Herod. They are pretty sure Matthew and or his sources were doing the standard JREF politics forum horsecrap, the standard Hannity horsecrap, the standard chattering classes horsecrap: making things up. He did kill a few of his own sons, but later, when they were (perceived) threats to his throne.

DR

 

[ImaginalDisc]

There is no evidence that Herod slaughtered all the boy babies in Bethlahe, even though historians record many other horrific deeds he commited. There was never any such census practice that required men to return to their home towns to be counted.

The biblical story of Jesus's miraculous conception and birth flies in the face of medical science and history. It was made up from whole cloth.

Now, let's move on.

 

[I Ratant]

What happened in that time, we have nothing reliable to look to, other than those histories of the era which are totally silent on the events in the NT.
And those histories are pretty much silent about the events in the OT also!

 

[Safe-Keeper]

There is no evidence that Heros slaughtered all the boy babies in Bethlahe, even though historians record many other horrific deeds he commited.

Didn't he die in 6 BCE anyhow? Hard to kill firstborns when you're dead, is it not?

And those histories are pretty much silent about the events in the OT also!

This just means they're lazy or controlled by the Devil. I mean, come on, they even missed that the freaking flood killed them and wiped out their cultures.

 

[fromdownunder]

There is so little evidence that Jesus even existed that nothing can be stated with certainty. We have the legitimate letters of Paul, who never knew Jesus and gives no history of the man worth speaking of. The author of GMark wrote 40 years or so after Jesus supposed death and cannot be relied upon. Note that this is the earliest Gospel, and says nothing of Jesus birth, youth or resurrection.

There is also two rather indifferent references to such a person by Josephus, one of which is believed to be a later interpolation.

That's pretty much it. The authors of Matthew and Luke (including Acts), which contradict each other several times, were believed to have been copied from Mark and Q (which also no longer exists), and who knows what John was smoking but he was not the slightest bit interested in a "historic" Jesus, but only Jesus as Logos. There is also a few other anonymous letters which made it into the Bible which say very little of a historic person.

Anything over and above the above, including whether Jesus was made up from whole cloth, or based on tales of an itinerant Jewish Rab who barnstormed aroung Galilee in the 30CE era, and may have been crucified by the Romans is pure speculation. There is nothing historical there to see.

 

[arthwollipot]

The biblical story of Jesus's miraculous conception and birth flies in the face of medical science and history. It was made up from whole cloth.

I don't think that can be reasonably said. Any folklorist will tell you that most myths actually have a seed of truth at their beginning, which is then elaborated and embellished. Personally I think it's quite likely that there was a rebel Jewish street preacher around back then, who annoyed the establishment so much that they arranged for the Romans to crucify him. I think that most of the stories about him were pretty much made up - some of them may be truthful, but the miracles were certainly exaggerated.

Sermon on the Mount? Yeah, sure. Why not?
Raising of the dead? Lazarus was probably just in a temporary coma.
Walking on Water? Metaphor taken literally.
Loaves and Fishes? Embellished retelling of a possibly true, but mundane, event.

Given how people tell stories, especially oral histories before they are permanently recorded, it's not the least unusual for a person to be given divine or semidivine status in the retelling.

 

[slingblade]

Don't know. Wasn't there.

 

[Damien Evans]

Don't know. Wasn't there.

perfect answer.

 

[G-K-4]

So what really happened 2000 years ago?

Wang Mang became emperor of China, right around this time of the year. Lots of other things happened that year, as well, some of which we still know about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8

As for the alleged biography of Jesus, a lot of that was taken from other tales of god-men which had been circulating for centuries. Look for the contradictions in Matthew and Luke, especially 1.) the differing lineages for Jesus' human father, 2.) the obvious meaninglessness of these begats if Jesus was immaculately conceived, and 3.) the contradictory reports of where this family lived. The Doctor Who canon has better consistency.

And as for why Paul's tall tales spread in the late first century CE, remember that the Jewish world was devastated. It's not surprising if some people latched onto that new cult that was promising a big comeuppance to the Empire within the lifetime of that generation. Add some savvy marketing to increase buy-in from Greeks, and you've got something.

You may want to look at Asimov's Guide to the Bible and chapter 5 of Tom Flynn's The Trouble with Christmas for more information.

 

[arthwollipot]

No, I have to say I'm pretty unsatisfied with that answer. Mostly because the myth has had a most pervasive effect on
our civilisation and culture, and because I'm too much of a history geek to be able to leave it at that.

ETA: response to slingblade, not to G-K-4.

 

[Malerin]

Don't know. Wasn't there.

That's a bit of a cop-out. You weren't at the signing of the Delcaration of Indepedence. Is that really John Hancock's signature?

 

[IMST]

So what really happened 2000 years ago?

I can tell you for sure that 2000 years ago, no one got me another damn beer. And so far, it hasn't happened tonight either.

 

[Breckmin]

Answer

Who's this Mary Magdalene chick? If she was such a follower of Jesus, or maybe even his wife, and was there for the execution, why didn't she recognize Jesus at first after the 'resurrection'? That's suspicious.

She was clearly not His wife, there is plenty of manuscript evidence in
the science of textual criticism to demonstrate that He was never married,
nor did He engage Himself in any sexual activity of any kind. Within the
closed set of assumptions of Christianity, this would have been beneath
Him to engage in a earthly practice that was temporary and meant for
procreation. (once again, this is within the closed set of assumptions
of a particular belief structure which has not been substantiated in an
open system without assumptions).

The reason she did not recognize Him was because He was in a glorified
body (an eternal body that many Christians believe does not have blood
but is transcendent and can pass through walls and various matter and
is eternal), a body that they some day believe that they will be raised
in also, to fellowship and worship Jesus in heaven for the rest of eternity.

Within the closed set of assumptions of Christianity, there are several
reasons why Christians believe in Jesus, and believe that He is clearly
the only time God became a man. 1. Who is it that should logically
rule Israel? Who should be King over Israel except God Himself. This
is why Messianic Jews believe Messiah will be not only King, but God
Incarnate in human flesh. 2. Often the most ironic things in life in up
being true. For instance, everything in life teaches us that there are
consequences for our actions. Why should there not be consequences
for our actions in the next life? Accountability, to the Owner of the
Universe? The greatest paradox is to have the unthinkable. That there
are billions who will have to be separated from God because of logical
imperfection which was never logically taken care of cosmically, and
that there will only be millions who actually receive forgiveness and
remain for the rest of eternity in awe that they did not receive the
separation and punishment of the billions. 3. Some will equate not
being a Christian to the ultimate form of gambling. IOW, if you study
all of the religions of the world and find the one with the absolute
worst consequences for not accepting it, you will find that born-again
Christianity is even worse than fundamental Islam. The claim is, however,
that not only do you have the worst consequences, but you also have
the greatest demonstration of LOVE from God to humankind in the
assertion that God indeed became a Man and died in the place of His
children (us.) {If you say this is based on fear like many cults try
to use to control people: argumentum ad consequentiam is easily
shown to be a fallacy for rejecting} 4. Besides all of the historical
evidence (shroud of Turin, the Talmud, writings of Flavias Josephus,
etc. etc. etc.) you also have thousands of NT texts to choose from
that validate each other. In addition, you have all of time in calander
years based on AD and BC which you can 'induce' fullness of time (but
this really has to do with the Roman Empire and the states of actualities
which existed for the gospel of Christ to be spread throughout the world).
5. The major difference between true Christianity and all other religions
is that with Christianity, you can not save yourself, you can NOT work
for it, you are helpless as a child, instead "God" had to become a Man
and die in your place. In all other religions of the world, they have
some sort of works related soteriological system (and this would include
the non-Christian cults like JW's or WatchTower). 6. Christians pray
for people to be saved and regularly get down on their hands and knees
and beg God to work miraculously in someone's life to change them. Other
religions do not do this to the same degree because they believe people
must perform "works." Christianity is all about "trusting" the Owner and
Creator of the universe as a logical fulfillment in creation. Finally, point
number 7. IF there is a God, then it would be logical to acknowledge Him
in their daily lives, and it would be foolish NOT to acknowledge the Creator.
There is a Father/Child relationship that is fulfilled in creation that is brought
to fruition at the point of salvation (out of this temporary world and slavery
to it, like the Hebrews were delivered out of Egypt). Often Christians will
claim that this temporary world (certainly the sun will burn out) is like a
testing ground with One Question.

The question that is often asked over and over again: WAYGTDAJ?

For the rest of everyone's lives the question will exist whether they
themselves ask the question, or whether someone else asks them the
question:

Translation: What are you going to do about Jesus?

This is based on a biblical premise that Christ said that people are
either for Him or against Him, and IF they do not believe that He is
uniquely God and that He alone died for their trangressions, THEN
they will die in their sins.

Back to point # 6. It is all about "trusting" the Creator to provide
for His children.
~Michael

 

[arthwollipot]

A new plaything!

Welcome, Breckmin!

 

[Z]

I sometimes wish that the Gnostic Christians had managed to keep their texts intact over the centuries... there is some awfully interesting speculation about Mary being one of Jesus' most trusted disciples. Surely that wouldn't have survived in a male-ego-centric early Christianity...

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't think that can be reasonably said. Any folklorist will tell you that most myths actually have a seed of truth at their beginning, which is then elaborated and embellished. Personally I think it's quite likely that there was a rebel Jewish street preacher around back then, who annoyed the establishment so much that they arranged for the Romans to crucify him. I think that most of the stories about him were pretty much made up - some of them may be truthful, but the miracles were certainly exaggerated.

Sermon on the Mount? Yeah, sure. Why not?
Raising of the dead? Lazarus was probably just in a temporary coma.
Walking on Water? Metaphor taken literally.
Loaves and Fishes? Embellished retelling of a possibly true, but mundane, event.

Given how people tell stories, especially oral histories before they are permanently recorded, it's not the least unusual for a person to be given divine or semidivine status in the retelling.

I could possibly accept that, if the issue wasn't implicitly what happened 2000 years ago, as in, what happened when Jesus was born. None of the NT story is backed up by any other sources. Virgin Birth? A dime a dozen claim, but only biblical sources claim Jesus was born that way. Why the elaborate, and patently false claim that Joseph had to return to his home town to be counted? To shoehorn Jesus into Jewish prophecies, of course.

Of course, nothing was written about Jesus, aside for a single reference in Josephus which historians vigorously debate may have been a fraudulent insertion by a later transcriber, until decades after his death. If Christians can dismiss the stories of Apollonius of Tyana as having too little historical basis and having too many impossible claims, I can dismiss the historical Jesus on the same grounds.

 

[X]

Given that much of the birth narrative was written after the earliest known scriptures (Mark) were written, it is rather pointless to speculate about Jesus' birth.

The birth narratives (two, each one slightly different) are found in the gospels of Matthew (star, wise men) and Luke (shepherds, angels).

some more information

These two gospels are largely based on the text in the gospel of Mark, and a possible unknown source document, Q. (Given the discrepancies in lineage and birth narrative between Luke and Matthew, we can be reasonably certain that "Q" does not contain a birth story. The inspirations were drawn from elsewhere.)

Jesus first appears as a preacher. The birth stories are an attempt at deification. They give Jesus godly origins.



The rest of his life is a collection of stories. These stories of dubious historical accuracy.

It is hard enough to prove that Jesus the man existed. This existence I am prepared to accept (although there have been some very convincing arguments made showing that many of the inconsistencies of the New Testament make sense if the thing is based on a fictional character).

Trying to deduce what he did when is a fruitless endeavor. Learn what you can about the texts (I recommend Bart Ehrman's books, and Gerald Larue).

Apply a bit of critical thinking, and accept that some things are lost to history.

 

[slingblade]

That's a bit of a cop-out. You weren't at the signing of the Delcaration of Indepedence. Is that really John Hancock's signature?

Don't know. Wasn't there.


How is the truth a cop-out?