Historical Jesus

[Tassman]

If you were making up a story about a guy you should totally trust as your source for Xianity, why spend a whole book making up a non-witness like Paul? Why not stick to Peter or James or whatever?

One possible answer is that Paul’s (authentic) epistles are all dated early - in the 50’s according to most biblical scholars. Whereas, by the time Luke/Acts was written, c.80 to 90 CE, the temple had been destroyed and the Jerusalem Church, of which Peter and James were the leading figures, had dispersed. This left Paul running the show.

 

[HansMustermann]

One possible answer is that Paul’s (authentic) epistles are all dated early - in the 50’s according to most biblical scholars. Whereas, by the time Luke/Acts was written, c.80 to 90 CE, the temple had been destroyed and the Jerusalem Church, of which Peter and James were the leading figures, had dispersed. This left Paul running the show.

Well, yes. That part makes sense. I can understand how Paul fits in the traditional narrative.

I'm talking about dejudge's chronology -- in as much as I can piece it together -- where Mark comes anywhere between 79 AD and somewhere in the 2nd century, Luke comes much later, Acts comes even later (since it's the sequel), and then even later someone makes up ALL the epistles (including the 7 you mention) about the character from Acts. And it's that story that I don't see how or why it would happen like that.

Not saying it's flat out impossible, mind you. Or at least I'm willing to hear it out. Gods know I even tried to hear out Pixie Of Key about his cosmology. But that's kinda it, I'd like to at least hear what the story actually is and how it's supposed to work. Which hasn't exactly been forthcoming.

 

[smartcooky]

<snip>

The Jesus story would have been known to be stupid fiction if he actually lived and was publicly crucified and died like a dog in Jerusalem.

The Jesus story only appears to be believable if it was fabricated after the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE and far away from Judea.

<snip>

So, based on your absurdity, Adam was not made up because it is claimed God spoke to him in the garden of Eden.

The record's stuck!
The record's stuck!
The record's stuck!
The record's stuck!
The record's stuck!
The record's stuck!
The record's stuck!

 

[ahhell]

I'm going to start this by saying, we can't really know whether there was an historical Jesus, though I think there probably was. Get rid of the supernatural elements and the story isn't all that special. A wandering preacher preached against the powers that be at a time when there were a lot of such preachers and got killed when he pissed off the powers that be.

None of the supernatural parts came out of a vacuum either. They were mostly ways of explaining how a nobody that got himself killed could possibly be the messiah or religious memes that were basically tropes. Death and resurrection, healing, raising of the dead, sexed up by gods where all common things in ancient myths. Mostly not tropes common to Judaism. Its almost as though its a syncretic religion of Judaism and Greco/Roman paganism. Things like the virgin birth, resurrection, and trip to Bethlehem were clearly trying to shoe horn Jesus into ill fitting prophecy.

I'm always struck at how bad the arguments for the proposition, "there was no historical Jesus" are. Again, stripped of the super natural bits, there is nothing unusual about the story.

Also, there is at least one reference by Josephus to Jesus relations that is generally considered legit. The bit about James the brother of Jesus who was killed or something like that.

There is a good comparison to L Ron Hubbard actually. He clearly existed and was in the Navy but he also clearly didn't do half the **** he claimed. Just because he wasn't actually a nuclear physicist and Black Foot tribe member, that doesn't mean he didn't exist. I'm also reminded of Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus. The only mention of them is one passage by J. Caeser. Sure, he might have just made up the names to make a point. The fact that anyone mentioned them is more evidence that they lived than the vast majority of humanity.

 

[dejudge]

One possible answer is that Paul’s (authentic) epistles are all dated early - in the 50’s according to most biblical scholars. Whereas, by the time Luke/Acts was written, c.80 to 90 CE, the temple had been destroyed and the Jerusalem Church, of which Peter and James were the leading figures, had dispersed. This left Paul running the show.

Why are you repeating chinese whispers ? All your claims about 'most bible scholars" and authentic Epistles in the 50's are bogus.

Do you know the posItion of all bible scholars in Asia, the Middle East and Europe?

There are no authentic NT writings anywhere. All existing NT writings are dated by paleography - not bible scholars.

Existing NT writings are dated by paleography no earlier than the 2nd century.

Plenty bible Scholars worship Jesus and pray to him for their salvation in order to go to heaven and must say that Jesus exist and that Paul wrote letters 50-60 CE using the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, a known work of fiction.

 

[dejudge]

I'm going to start this by saying, we can't really know whether there was an historical Jesus, though I think there probably was. Get rid of the supernatural elements and the story isn't all that special. A wandering preacher preached against the powers that be at a time when there were a lot of such preachers and got killed when he pissed off the powers that be.

You have already admitted you don't know whether or not there was an historical Jesus so your made up imaginative stories are rather useless.

None of the supernatural parts came out of a vacuum either. They were mostly ways of explaining how a nobody that got himself killed could possibly be the messiah or religious memes that were basically tropes. Death and resurrection, healing, raising of the dead, sexed up by gods where all common things in ancient myths. Mostly not tropes common to Judaism. Its almost as though its a syncretic religion of Judaism and Greco/Roman paganism. Things like the virgin birth, resurrection, and trip to Bethlehem were clearly trying to shoe horn Jesus into ill fitting prophecy.

You don't know what you are talking about. You just made up your own story about your Jesus and want people to believe your unsubstantiated claims. You have no historical evidence at all that your Jesus was a nobody.

You seem to be doing what NT authors did- invent imaginative Jesus stories that people would believe

I'm always struck at how bad the arguments for the proposition, "there was no historical Jesus" are. Again, stripped of the super natural bits, there is nothing unusual about the story.

Your fabricated natural Jesus story is total fiction uncorroborated by all writings of antiquity.

Your natural Jesus was fabricated from your imagination.

Also, there is at least one reference by Josephus to Jesus relations that is generally considered legit. The bit about James the brother of Jesus who was killed or something like that.

You don't know what you are talking about. James in Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was the brother of Jesus the High Priest who was alive in the time of Albinus.

High Priest were called Christ [the anointed] by Jews.
Jesus called Christ in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was still living c 62-64 CE.

There is a good comparison to L Ron Hubbard actually. He clearly existed and was in the Navy but he also clearly didn't do half the **** he claimed. Just because he wasn't actually a nuclear physicist and Black Foot tribe member, that doesn't mean he didn't exist. I'm also reminded of Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus. The only mention of them is one passage by J. Caeser. Sure, he might have just made up the names to make a point. The fact that anyone mentioned them is more evidence that they lived than the vast majority of humanity.

Again, such a comparison is highly illogical. There is no historical reference or document for Jesus, the disciples and Paul. L Ron Hubbard is a known figure of history whose birth and life is documented.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are comparable to mythology and fiction like those of Romulus, Remus and Jupiter.

 

[ahhell]

You have already admitted you don't know whether or not there was an historical Jesus so your made up imaginative stories are rather useless.

If you say so.

You don't know what you are talking about. You just made up your own story about your Jesus and want people to believe your unsubstantiated claims. You have no historical evidence at all that your Jesus was a nobody.

You seem to be doing what NT authors did- invent imaginative Jesus stories that people would believe

Sure, because the non-super natural bits don't basically add up to a rather mundane and common(from the period) story about an itinerant preacher.

Your fabricated natural Jesus story is total fiction uncorroborated by all writings of antiquity.

Your natural Jesus was fabricated from your imagination.

Well, except for the new testament and various other other accounts of messianic and non messianic preachers and cults of antiquity but ep.

You don't know what you are talking about. James in Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was the brother of Jesus the High Priest who was alive in the time of Albinus.

High Priest were called Christ [the anointed] by Jews.
Jesus called Christ in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was still living c 62-64 CE.

That is clearly a minority of the opinion among the relevant, even skeptical scholars. There is nothing in the text that indicates whether the Jesus in question was alive or not.

Again, such a comparison is highly illogical. There is no historical reference or document for Jesus, the disciples and Paul. L Ron Hubbard is a known figure of history whose birth and life is documented.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are comparable to mythology and fiction like those of Romulus, Remus and Jupiter.

This assumes that record keeping in the first century was nearly as thorough as it is now. Which is certainly imaginative. And there are historical documents referencing Jesus, the Disciples and Paul. You just dismiss them all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm going to start this by saying, we can't really know whether there was an historical Jesus, though I think there probably was. Get rid of the supernatural elements and the story isn't all that special. A wandering preacher preached against the powers that be at a time when there were a lot of such preachers and got killed when he pissed off the powers that be.

There it is again. If you get rid of the supernatural elements, how can you call it Jesus from the bible? Jesus, as described in the bible, was not merely a wandering preacher who preached against the powers that be and got killed for it. That's not the Jesus we learn about from the bible.

If there was a Dorothy who lived in Kansas and had an Uncle Henry and Aunt Em, can we call her a "historical Dorothy" even if she never went to the land of Oz?

See Hans's post above about whatever animal he came up and how it is his cat. Or would you say that unicorns exist? I mean, ignore the horn thing and it's just like a horse.

 

[Kapyong]

And there are historical documents referencing Jesus, the Disciples and Paul. You just dismiss them all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources

Wrong.

There are NO historical documents referencing Jesus - which is obviously the reason you didn't cite any.
That wikipedia list does NOT give a historical reference for Jesus - you didn't even read it, did you ?

Furthermore, there are NO historical documents referencing Paul either (just some mentions in later Christian books.)

And there are NO historical documents referencing the disciples as followers of Jesus either (just later Christian repeats of Christian stories and characters.)

Why on earth didn't you CHECK that page you cited ?
Instead of looking foolish by making faithful but false claims ?

The facts are crystal clear -

there is NO (contemporary) historical evidence for Jesus, or the Gospel stories, or the epistle writers.

Kapyong

 

[ahhell]

There it is again. If you get rid of the supernatural elements, how can you call it Jesus from the bible? Jesus, as described in the bible, was not merely a wandering preacher who preached against the powers that be and got killed for it. That's not the Jesus we learn about from the bible.

If there was a Dorothy who lived in Kansas and had an Uncle Henry and Aunt Em, can we call her a "historical Dorothy" even if she never went to the land of Oz?

See Hans's post above about whatever animal he came up and how it is his cat. Or would you say that unicorns exist? I mean, ignore the horn thing and it's just like a horse.

If that Dorothy was Baum's next door neighbor, yes, I would say she was the historical Dorothy.

If there actually was a guy name Jesus that went around Judea preaching stuff like the bible claims roughly at the time the Bible claims, how is that not the historical Jesus?

So, there is a spectrum of historicity of the character that starts at it was all made up to it was all true. So, I suspect everyone here thinks it wasn't all true. I guess the question is how far from the bible does the person its based on have to get before we think its not an actual historical person? Again with Hubbard, the real man was quite far from the character that is said to have founded dianetics, so why can't we say, there is no historical L Ron Hubbard if that's the standard.

 

[ahhell]

Wrong.

There are NO historical documents referencing Jesus - which is obviously the reason you didn't cite any.
That wikipedia list does NOT give a historical reference for Jesus - you didn't even read it, did you ?

Furthermore, there are NO historical documents referencing Paul either (just some mentions in later Christian books.)

And there are NO historical documents referencing the disciples as followers of Jesus either (just later Christian repeats of Christian stories and characters.)

Why on earth didn't you CHECK that page you cited ?
Instead of looking foolish by making faithful but false claims ?

The facts are crystal clear -

there is NO (contemporary) historical evidence for Jesus, or the Gospel stories, or the epistle writers.

Kapyong

More like you didn't read it, nor my actual post, nor the post I was reading.


Oh wait, I get it, you just think that christian sources don't count. Well, ok. I don't know why anyone who wasn't a christian would bother talking about a guy that preached for somewhere between 1 and 10 years then was killed ignomiously would spark much interest outside his adherents.

 

[pgwenthold]

If that Dorothy was Baum's next door neighbor, yes, I would say she was the historical Dorothy.

How about Dorothy being Baum's niece?

You are the only person I know to acknowledge a "historical Dorothy" though.

If there actually was a guy name Jesus that went around Judea preaching stuff like the bible claims roughly at the time the Bible claims, how is that not the historical Jesus?

Because Jesus, as described in the bible, didn't just preach "stuff like the bible claims."

So the question is, how similar to the biblical Jesus does the person need to be to be considered a "historical" character?

So, there is a spectrum of historicity of the character that starts at it was all made up to it was all true. So, I suspect everyone here thinks it wasn't all true. I guess the question is how far from the bible does the person its based on have to get before we think its not an actual historical person?

That is certainly the question. Unfortunately, with such a low bar, it means that you can find a lot of supposed "historical" characters, to the point where it basically has no meaning. You've conceded Jesus of the Bible is just as real as Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz.

If that's the level you want to set, fine. The problem comes with the bait-and-switch, where the Christian takes this and says, "A-ha! Even atheist scholars admit Jesus was real!"

 

[ahhell]

If that's the level you want to set, fine. The problem comes with the bait-and-switch, where the Christian takes this and says, "A-ha! Even atheist scholars admit Jesus was real!"

So what if they do? When atheists insist there is no evidence that there was a Jesus they say "see atheist are just as religious only they have faith that god doesn't exist, they won't even admit there was an historical Jesus." Also, being mentioned at all is more evidence of existence than the vast majority of people prior to 1 or 2 hundred years ago depending on where you're from.

Anyrate, were just going in circles. I will try and leave with, the apparent certainty of many of the mythicists is unwarranted. I am by no means certain there was an actual Jesus, I just think it more likely than not. The historical record is relatively consistent with a guy that preach for a few years, who's followers started a new and relatively insignificant cult after his death that did gain any prominence for a generation or so. That story is also relatively similar to how most modern new religious movements have gone. Granted there are also a few that seem to be a Paul like figure who are making up the ascended masters, aliens, or what not. There are also, plenty that just have a bunch of exaggerated tails about an actual founder. We just have better records now.

 

[smartcooky]

There it is again. If you get rid of the supernatural elements, how can you call it Jesus from the bible?

The same way that if you get rid of the fake elements, you still have L Ron Hubbard of the Church of Scientology.

 

[dejudge]

The same way that if you get rid of the fake elements, you still have L Ron Hubbard of the Church of Scientology.

If you remove the fake elements from the Jesus stories you get no history- you get nobody.

 

[dejudge]

More like you didn't read it, nor my actual post, nor the post I was reading.


Oh wait, I get it, you just think that christian sources don't count. Well, ok. I don't know why anyone who wasn't a christian would bother talking about a guy that preached for somewhere between 1 and 10 years then was killed ignomiously would spark much interest outside his adherents.

The writings attributed to Josephus actually mention many persons called Jesus who should have been far less known than Jesus of Nazareth who was supposedly worshiped as a God in the Roman Empire.

For example, Jesus the son of Ananus had no disciples and was a loner merely shouting "Woe unto Jerusalem" but yet Josephus wrote about him and gave details about his trial under Albinus.

Wars of the Jews 6.5.3

.... there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. ............................................................Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"
And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.

It is clear that the writings of Josephus contain characters even a mad man named Jesus who were far less significant than the so-called Jesus of Nazareth was supposed to have been worshiped as a God by people in Judea, Antioch, Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Thesalonica, Philippi, Galatia and Colosse.

 

[dejudge]

So what if they do? When atheists insist there is no evidence that there was a Jesus they say "see atheist are just as religious only they have faith that god doesn't exist, they won't even admit there was an historical Jesus." Also, being mentioned at all is more evidence of existence than the vast majority of people prior to 1 or 2 hundred years ago depending on where you're from.

Anyrate, were just going in circles. I will try and leave with, the apparent certainty of many of the mythicists is unwarranted. I am by no means certain there was an actual Jesus, I just think it more likely than not. The historical record is relatively consistent with a guy that preach for a few years, who's followers started a new and relatively insignificant cult after his death that did gain any prominence for a generation or so. That story is also relatively similar to how most modern new religious movements have gone. Granted there are also a few that seem to be a Paul like figure who are making up the ascended masters, aliens, or what not. There are also, plenty that just have a bunch of exaggerated tails about an actual founder. We just have better records now.

Your Jesus story is irrelevant since it is only based on your imagination.

Your imagination is worthless as historical evidence.

Your assumed Jesus is a fiction character.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

So what if they do? When atheists insist there is no evidence that there was a Jesus they say "see atheist are just as religious only they have faith that god doesn't exist, they won't even admit there was an historical Jesus." Also, being mentioned at all is more evidence of existence than the vast majority of people prior to 1 or 2 hundred years ago depending on where you're from.

I am an atheist and I do not insist, I do not even care if Jesus exists or not. As for evidence, yes there is much evidence of many people named Jesus who lived about the first century, and now ... there are many people whose name is Jesus.

If you mean the jesus of the bible? well, many people throughout history claimed to be him, but whether there is an original : I don't know.

Anyway, I am sure the original jesus does not walk on water, or turn blood into wine.

 

[dejudge]

Which is exactly the POINT. Nobody seems to have ever made up the FOUNDER of a church, yet you claim that just for Paul that would happen. For no obvious reason, and no stated mechanism for how it could even work.[/quote[

What absolute nonsense!!

The founders of Rome were made up. Romulus and Remus were fabricated and people in the Roman Empire believed the stories were true.

You seem to have no idea that there were many many made up characters in antiquity.

Paul is a fiction character, a fabricated christian, manufactured in the 2nd century or later in an attempt to appear as a witness to the resurrected Jesus and the disciples.

The lies of the Pauline writers have been exposed because neither Jesus or the disciples ever existed.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

Some followers of Trump attributed special powers to him that he doesn't have.
Some followers of Jesus the Galilean attributed to him special powers he didn't have.
That doesn't mean that Trump doesn't exist, but that there are some very "imaginative" followers of him.
That does not mean that Jesus the Galilean did not exist, but that he had very imaginative followers.

If a historical Jesus exists, but he doesn't have the special powers we read about in the bible. Does that mean that he is not the Jesus of the Bible?