What counts as a historical Jesus?

[Piggy]

I guess, for you, Jesus was just a run-of-the-mill apocalypse preacher and the growth of the Jesus movement was just a freak accident. I've heard this story before.

I don't know what you mean by "freak accident", but yes, Jesus does not appear to have been anything special during his life.

And btw, the fact that you've heard something before doesn't mean it's false.

 

[HansMustermann]

As always, you are amazing but I respectfully disagree. Even if events transpired as you say, the expectations after a Virgin Birth and a visit by an angel should have been different and excuses were in order, not a statement that Jesus was "out of his mind".

Well, we can agree on that point. Jesus (if he existed) was not a miraculous son of God, and indeed Mark's version says that his family didn't think so either. So, yeah, one way or the other, we can be pretty sure that there weren't prophets and angels telling Mary that she's carrying the son of God.

But that's not what I'm arguing.

I'm just saying that that page doesn't seem to say that there was some theological argument with his family. Jesus was just becoming some superstar exorcist at that point, according to Mark, and especially if you understand what exorcisms REALLY involved and still do in half the world, that's really reason enough for his family's reaction.

Maybe Jesus did have some theology argument with his parents. Maybe he didn't. But Mark just doesn't say that he did.

 

[Thomas Bowers]

I don't know what you mean by "freak accident", but yes, Jesus does not appear to have been anything special during his life.

And btw, the fact that you've heard something before doesn't mean it's false.

Wow! The so-called "Son Of God" was not special during his life-time. Live and learn.

 

[IanS]

Which claims do you think have merit?

That video is an hour long. Since I've already heard all the mythicist arguments, I don't need to listen to them again. It gets tedious.

Yep. It's actually an hour of explaining, in referenced historical detail, specifically why the scholarship you regard as "expert" and "correct" is fatally flawed. Good use of anyone's time to spend an hour taking a very careful look at that.

 

[HansMustermann]

Wow! The so-called "Son Of God" was not special during his life-time. Live and learn.

Well, he wasn't particularly famous, that's pretty certain. Neither Josephus, nor Philo, nor a lot of others who would have had good reasons to notice a superstar messiah, actually find Jesus worth writing about. And I mean, for example, Philo should have been very interested in a guy who claims to be exactly the incarnated Word Of God that Philo had just invented.

So if he existed, then yes, he was not special. In fact, he'd be a nobody that pretty much nobody except his gang ever heard about.

 

[Thomas Bowers]

Well, he wasn't particularly famous, that's pretty certain. Neither Josephus, nor Philo, nor a lot of others who would have had good reasons to notice a superstar messiah, actually find Jesus worth writing about. And I mean, for example, Philo should have been very interested in a guy who claims to be exactly the incarnated Word Of God that Philo had just invented.

So if he existed, then yes, he was not special. In fact, he'd be a nobody that pretty much nobody except his gang ever heard about.

Without rehashing old ground we have contested elsewhere (and would be off-topic in this thread), Jesus was a man and not a superstar (or the Son of God)while he lived. It was his message from God for humanity that had the power to grow and had to be clipped and managed by paganized Roman scholars and eventually co-opted by the Roman Empire.

 

[tsig]

Well, that's not actually how scholars approach the subject.

All that we can glean from the documents is that certain members of Jesus' family are attested to, and that one of his brothers continued the ministry in Jerusalem.

And btw, Jesus never abandoned Judaism. He was operating squarely within the Jewish traditions of his time. Nobody who knew Jesus, or heard him preach, would have thought he was turning away from Judaism in any way.

Problem is Piggy we don't know of anybody that knew Jesus or heard him preach so you have no idea what his ideology was.

 

[tsig]

No, it's not begging the question.

I was replying to someone about a definitional matter. And that's the definition. The question of whether a historical Jesus existed is not the same question.

Of course, that question has been studied for well over a century now, and there is an overwhelming consensus that the Christian religion grew out of a small group of Jewish end-timers led by a man called (in translation) Jesus, who was crucified by Pilate.

There simply is no other coherent scenario which explains all of the evidence at hand.

And nobody on this thread or any other such thread on this forum has ever offered one.

Yes there is an overwhelming consensus (of Christian scholars) that the Christian religion grew out of a small group of Jewish end-timers led by a man called (in translation) Jesus, who was crucified by Pilate.


Christians agreeing Christ was real, who'd a thunk it.

 

[tsig]

Wow! The so-called "Son Of God" was not special during his life-time. Live and learn.

I thought you didn't believe in that pagan stuff.

 

[Thomas Bowers]

For Piggy, I am referring to my vision of Jesus, his mission and the trail of historical events so he will have something else to grumble about. http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=182623

 

[Thomas Bowers]

I thought you didn't believe in that pagan stuff.

I guess my satire isn't transparent enough.

 

[HansMustermann]

Without rehashing old ground we have contested elsewhere (and would be off-topic in this thread), Jesus was a man and not a superstar (or the Son of God)while he lived. It was his message from God for humanity that had the power to grow and had to be clipped and managed by paganized Roman scholars and eventually co-opted by the Roman Empire.

Except that it is rehashing the same nonsense that was shown to be wrong in the other thread. E.g., you were already told that we already see that "paganized" message in Paul and the gospels, which cover pretty much the whole way between 50 AD and 100 AD.

As sleepy lioness tried to tell you, Paul's epistles are really the earliest documents we have at all on Xianity, and Philippians is the second epistle we have from him, chronologically. Yet it already shows a pretty divine Christ.

Paul may be lacking all the miracles and parables and divine birth, but it's pretty darn clear that for him Jesus WAS divine and had raised from the grave.

And there is no reason to assume that Paul or Mark were trying to "clip" and "manage" some obscure and insignificant Jewish sect's ideology for the benefit of the Roman Empire. For example if the Roman Empire was managing Xianity at that point, someone forgot to tell Nero about it.

In fact, there's no reason for them to try to clip and contain it at all. Now Paul may be trying to make a living out of it, but there is no sane reason why he'd actively want to thwart and contain it.

ETA: and at any rate, the version that spread and influenced and eventually was co-opted is the version that Paul seeded all around the Mediterranean. If there was some pure pre-Paul Xianity, then actually that "un-paganized" message wasn't the one that spread like swine flu all over the Roman Empire. The version that spread and influenced and all was already the "clipped" version of Paul.

 

[Thomas Bowers]

Except that it is rehashing the same nonsense that was shown to be wrong in the other thread. E.g., you were already told that we already see that "paganized" message in Paul and the gospels, which cover pretty much the whole way between 50 AD and 100 AD.

As sleepy lioness tried to tell you, Paul's epistles are really the earliest documents we have at all on Xianity, and Philippians is the second epistle we have from him, chronologically. Yet it already shows a pretty divine Christ.

Paul may be lacking all the miracles and parables and divine birth, but it's pretty darn clear that for him Jesus WAS divine and had raised from the grave.

And there is no reason to assume that Paul or Mark were trying to "clip" and "manage" some obscure and insignificant Jewish sect's ideology for the benefit of the Roman Empire. For example if the Roman Empire was managing Xianity at that point, someone forgot to tell Nero about it.

In fact, there's no reason for them to try to clip and contain it at all. Now Paul may be trying to make a living out of it, but there is no sane reason why he'd actively want to thwart and contain it.

Agreed that Paul probably got the paganization ball rolling in his personal mission to build a church among the Gentiles. He always had struck me as a results oriented guy. His efforts later and increasingly proved useful to the Roman authorities. So that is not the whole story. The path was obviously not straight, as the Nero hiccup shows.

More later. My wife insists we head to the cantina.

 

[pakeha]

Yes, because the things that happen there don't happen in Kansas. But some of the things that happen in the Gospels did indeed happen in Judaea, and some didn't, like people being raised from the dead, or (more remarkable still) raising themselves from the dead. (I'm practicing that for when I need it.) But wandering apocalyptic preachers getting whacked has a certain plausibility about it.

Agreed.
Any reason, though, to image the historical Jesus existed?

...And actually I may have undermined my own point, because the above is actually WAY better supportable and better scholarship than the HJ reconstructions

Brilliant summing up, HM.

...
The historical Jesus is simply the actual person who lived, or more accurately what we can tease out about his life.

It's not that difficult, really.

What do you think we can tease out about his life?

As always, you are amazing but I respectfully disagree. Even if events transpired as you say, the expectations after a Virgin Birth and a visit by an angel should have been different and excuses were in order, not a statement that Jesus was "out of his mind".

As you say, "If".

 

[kblood]

Who counts as the historical Jesus might be a better question. What was his social security number?

 

[Piggy]

Wow! The so-called "Son Of God" was not special during his life-time. Live and learn.

Being called Son of God was not all that special, no. Not in those days.

The claim to being the Son of Man was a much more radical and important claim on the part of his followers.

 

[kblood]

Being called Son of God was not all that special, no. Not in those days.

The claim to being the Son of Man was a much more radical and important claim on the part of his followers.

Heck, I am even calling myself the son of God these days

But do not mind me. Im CRAAAAAZY!.

 

[Piggy]

Yep. It's actually an hour of explaining, in referenced historical detail, specifically why the scholarship you regard as "expert" and "correct" is fatally flawed. Good use of anyone's time to spend an hour taking a very careful look at that.

No, it's a total waste of time. In fact, it's worse than that, because if you don't know enough about the scholarship to spot the errors, you'll come away with wrong ideas.

And no, I'm not going to take an hour of my life to watch that video, because there won't be any new arguments in it, I've heard them.

If there are arguments which you find compelling, simply explain them.

 

[kblood]

No, it's a total waste of time. In fact, it's worse than that, because if you don't know enough about the scholarship to spot the errors, you'll come away with wrong ideas.

And no, I'm not going to take an hour of my life to watch that video, because there won't be any new arguments in it, I've heard them.

If there are arguments which you find compelling, simply explain them.

To err is to be human as they say.

 

[Piggy]

Problem is Piggy we don't know of anybody that knew Jesus or heard him preach so you have no idea what his ideology was.

Come on, you can't really believe that.

History's always a game of probabilities, but it's simply not true that we know nothing about anybody for whom we don't have direct primary sources or evidence.

The core question is this: What was the group which Paul joined?

Or more specifically for this thread, when they said (as we know from Paul, who knew Jesus's brother and some of his disciples, and by examining later writings by later generations of the group) that their branch of Judaism was based on the teachings and life of a charismatic apocalyptic Gailean who was crucified by Pilate… why did they say that?

Did they say it because it was true?

Or did they say it for some other reason?

That is the key to the question of the historical Jesus.

What we find is that if we assume that they said it because it was true, everything falls very nicely into place. In other words, the artifacts as we have them are consistent with that particular claim being accurate.

The problem for contrarians is that nobody so far has been able to come up with any other reason for them making this claim in particular which actually fits the body of evidence we have.

That's why there are not even half a dozen publishing scholars in the field who doubt that there was a historical Jesus.

And when you listen to the contrarians, you'll notice they never provide, or even attempt to provide, any such coherent narrative. It's always attempts to peck at this or that point, and even so, they've never been able to muster a point that can't be either debunked or dismissed as irrelevant.

That's why there simply is no academic debate about the existence of a historical Jesus. Because 2 or 3 lone wolves out there howling, does not constitute a real academic debate.