Historical Jesus

[theheno]

Re. the highlight - I don't think that view is unreasonable. But ... if you take away the gospels, discard those completely, then all that would be left as any mention of Jesus at all would be Paul's letters ... but they too are totally discredited by the following observations -

1 for most of Christian history, we had 13 letters which were all assumed without question to be actually written by Paul himself around 50 to 60 AD

2 but now we know that we have no such letters from anywhere near 50 to 60 AD, and the earliest we have probably date from around 200AD

3 all of the letters we have are anonymously written, we have no idea who the copyist writers were

4 out of those 13, even Christian Bible Scholars now accept that at least 6 of the letters are fakes written various people

5 but the remaining 7, although Bible Scholars and Christians all insist that these are genuinely by Paul, in fact we have no idea if those are the genuine ones! It could just as easily be that one of the "fakes" is the only genuine one! ... or it might just as easily be that none of them are genuine!


That's not very good to start with as a credible source of evidence. But of course it gets worse -


6 nowhere in the "genuine" letters does the author "Paul" ever claim to have met a real human Jesus. In fact he specifically says that he only "met" Jesus as a spiritual vision in the heavens.

7 that same author tells us that 500 or more people also "met" Jesus, but again they only met him as sprit in the skies

8 repeatedly throughout all those letters "Paul" make very clear that what he knew about Jesus is always "according to scripture" ... everything Paul writes about his belief in a "Christ", he says he got that from scripture following a blinding revelation from God.

9 Paul never says he got anything at all about Jesus from any actual witnesses ... in fact on the contrary he insists that he got it "from no man", he says in every instance it was a revealtion from God that was "according to scripture".


That's not any kind of credible evidence of a real Jesus, is it? That's really barely any better than the gospels, isn't it?? Where is the evidence that should make us believe that Jesus was more likely than not, ie better than 50% likely?

Hi Ian, when would you think the gospels were actually written?

 

[Darat]

There's no amount of false stories about any person/character that would rationally lead to a conclusion about that person's/character's existence There's just not a bit of sense to be found in that concept because there's no limit to how much false stuff can be said about a real person. (And the impossible parts of this guy's story aren't even very much of it anyway. It's mostly just wandering around talking & some simple routine Benny-Hinn-type "magic" stunts.)

The problem for the "he's just entirely made up" argument is that we have the choice of two human behaviors to ascribe to the authors...

1. Get inspired by a real guy or his following to write some made-up stuff about him along with the real stuf, or
2. Make up an entirely unreal person for those impossible feats to have been done by

...of which #1 is clearly more consistent with human behavior in historical context, by such a wide margin as to make #2 almost absurd by comparison. There's no contest at all which one is the more realistic explanation for the authors' decision to write the books, in the absence of other evidence.

No in terms of religion 2) is the one that reflects most of recorded history.

 

[IanS]

I have to say I have found this thread fascinating. I was raised catholic, lost my faith in that god about 15 years of age, full atheist about 20 years old I'd say. I always assumed jesus did exist but the whole religion of it is nonsense, like the HJ side of this thread. Reading this thread I dont have nearly enough knowledge to engage in debate on it, I'm learning lots from you guys. I have a couple of questions if that's ok, things I'm not quite sure what your stance is.
1.. For the HJ believers. Is it your belief that the generally accepted dates are correct, Jesus dying around 33AD, epistles wrote in the 50's? Would this mean that christianity spread so quick and so wide that within a few decades back then , it had spread to Rome in such a large manner that there was so many members there that Nero could use them as a scapegoat for the fire, and the people of Rome would all know who these people were etc. If this is so haven't a lot of people said the lack of sources mentioning Jesus in the first century are because he was of no importance and would basically be unknown to most. If someone could clarify this for me , and yes my thinking might be muddled here.
2.. For the MJ believers. Do you believe that Nero blamed the christians for the fire? If so and there was so many christians at that time, when and how do you think the religion started , and began to spread so wide . Anyway I hope the thread keeps running, I'm learning lots

Well, I'm not actually an "MJ believer" ... my position is that the evidence of a real Jesus is completely lacking, and the biblical writing all so seriously discredited that there is no good evidential reason think that he probably existed ... but I would not like to guess any percentage likelihood at all, neither 0%, nor 100%, and nor anything in between.

But as far as Nero blaming Christians for a fire etc. - I would not trust any of this writing to be reliable at all. So I'd just dismiss that completely.

How could a religion start without a real human figure as it's central supernatural deity (because Jesus was described as the supernatural scion of God)? Well the answer is that it probably started in exactly the same way as all the hundreds and thousands of other religions started, where the supernatural deity at the heart of the religion never existed at all (although for all of those religions the deity was claimed to be certainly real ... and lots of witnesses claimed to see all of those thousands of deities doing all sorts of things on the Earth and in the skies).

If people thousands of years ago could invent a fictitious god for all those other religions, then they could just as easily do that for Jesus too (and the “Christ” had been believed from, and taught from, OT scripture for over 500 years before any NT Biblical writing … so at the time, all religious Jews were quite sure that just such a saviour Christ was certain to appear).

 

[clayflingythingy]

But this is a different issue from saying that some sort of deranged fanatical preacher (they were a dime a dozen back then) never existed - someone who managed to strike the right chord with a group of illiterate fisherman. QUOTE]

You are assuming the account in gMark is historically accurate as to Peter being a fisherman. That may be a literary invention (fisher of men, perhaps? ). You cannot assume this is historical since we know gMark makes stuff up.

The earliest members of the cult of Christ Jesus may have all been highly educated men and women and literate in Greek. Paul certainly was.




Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk

 

[theheno]

Is there any HJ believers here that could help with my first question?
1.. For the HJ believers. Is it your belief that the generally accepted dates are correct, Jesus dying around 33AD, epistles wrote in the 50's? Would this mean that christianity spread so quick and so wide that within a few decades back then , it had spread to Rome in such a large manner that there was so many members there that Nero could use them as a scapegoat for the fire, and the people of Rome would all know who these people were etc. If this is so haven't a lot of people said the lack of sources mentioning Jesus in the first century are because he was of no importance and would basically be unknown to most. If someone could clarify this for me , and yes my thinking might be muddled here.

 

[abaddon]

What is most amusing is that it is easily argued that Bible Adam did not exist however some have no idea whether or not Bible Jesus, the water walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending son of a Ghost character did exist.

Bible Adam and Bible Jesus are no different they are fiction characters that never ever existed at anytime.

Bible Jesus is the last Adam. Bible Jesus was a Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45

Bible Adam and Bible Jesus never ever had any history,

Strawman.

 

[dejudge]

....If people thousands of years ago could invent a fictitious god for all those other religions, then they could just as easily do that for Jesus too (and the “Christ” had been believed from, and taught from, OT scripture for over 500 years before any NT Biblical writing … so at the time, all religious Jews were quite sure that just such a saviour Christ was certain to appear).

It should be noted that the Jews expected their Messianic ruler at around c 66-70 CE at the time of the Jewish War - not at the time of Pilate c 27-37.

The prediction by the Jews of the arrival of their Messianic ruler around c 66-70 CE was based on their Sacred Scripture.

Josephus' Wars of the Jews 6.5.4

But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.

Tacitus' Histories V

........... in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire...

Suetonius' Life of Vespasian

An ancient superstition was current in the East, that out of Judaea would come the rulers of the world. This prediction, as it later proved, referred to two Roman Emperors, Vespasian and his son Titus; but the rebellious Jews, who read it as referring to themselves...

These three writers corroborate that the Jews expected their Messiah at around c 66-70 CE which contradict the NT Jesus stories.

There was no known predicted Jewish Messianic ruler named Jesus of Nazareth up to the start of the 2nd century or up to the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

 

[dejudge]

But this is a different issue from saying that some sort of deranged fanatical preacher (they were a dime a dozen back then) never existed - someone who managed to strike the right chord with a group of illiterate fisherman. QUOTE]

You are assuming the account in gMark is historically accurate as to Peter being a fisherman. That may be a literary invention (fisher of men, perhaps? ). You cannot assume this is historical since we know gMark makes stuff up.

The earliest members of the cult of Christ Jesus may have all been highly educated men and women and literate in Greek. Paul certainly was.




Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk

Which Paul was an early member of the cult of Christ Jesus?

You cannot assume anything in the Pauline Epistles about Jesus and the apostles to be historical. We know the Epistles are riddled with fiction or as some suggested, products of hallucination, mass hysteria or some kind of brain defect.

 

[Kapyong]

Erm... I keep reading dejudge as claiming precisely that. But perhaps I'm reading his posts the wrong way...

Oh, maybe he did say that.
I have long since ignored dejudge.

If I was wrong on that, I apologise.

 

[IanS]

Hi Ian, when would you think the gospels were actually written?

Like everyone else, I have to guess. But first I think that a crucial point to understand is that what we have now as the gospel stories of Jesus did not of course come from the smallest fragmented remains or from more extensive pages which are nevertheless only partly readable and with a lot of the content missing. Some of that may be quite early, say 150AD to 250AD, and it may be identifiable as coming from a specific gospel (eg there is a credit-card sized remnant that is said to be from the gospel of John, and said to date from about 125AD … though it could by much later), but none of that is sufficiently complete to give us the details that everyone quotes as the gospel accounts of Jesus ... what has been used to find all the familiar gospel stories of Jesus are much later more complete copies that are typically dated as no earlier than about 4th to 6th century (and most of it is later than 6th century) … see this Wikipedia link for example -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

But the way those fragments and larger sections have been dated, is afaik mainly by some specific parts of the written content which mentions for example the destruction of a particular temple. However, I don't think that is a very scientific or reliable way to date those remnants at all

Some radiocarbon dating has also been done, but iirc the error range is really quite large, or at least it's too large in respect of how precisely people argue about when specific events might have occurred. That is - the arguments about a HJ often hinge on something happening with about 10 or 20 years either way ... but the error range on the radiocarbon dates may be as much as 100 years or more. See, for example the link below to a paper reporting radiocarbon dating of two papyrus samples, one from the gospel of John which gave a date around 700AD, and the other from a gospel attributed to the wife of Jesus (!!) which gave a date between about 200AD to 400AD -

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/gojw/files/hodginssupplementalreport2013v4.pdf


So what's the conclusion from any of that? Well, I think the first thing to say is that claimed dates in the first century, which are the dates always claimed by biblical scholars (and of course by all Christian leaders), are a complete guess, and really they are a guess which attempts to push the dates back as close as possible to the believed lifetime of Jesus, and they do that simply because it is very well known that written evidence like that becomes far less reliable as soon it begins to be many years or several decades after the claimed events … IOW – if it's much more than say 30 or 40 years after the lifetime of Jesus then it's becoming increasingly less useful as a reliable source.

The next thing to say is that, because we don't have any gospels at all from the first century (not even the tiniest fragment), we do not really know what any first century gospels might have said about Jesus. They might quite easily have included passages that showed they were writing about a messiah (ie a “Christ”) who was only ever a figure from religious belief. And one reason to think that might be the case, is that, that is the way Jesus is actually described in Paul's letters (and they are supposed to be the earliest writing about Jesus, ie pre-dating the gospels).

And finally- afaik even Christian writers and bible scholars accept that the gospels were not originally in the form that we see now. Instead those gospels probably started out as numerous so-called short “pericopes”, ie short religious sermons or preaching stories, which were later gathered together to create each gospel (see for example E.P. Sanders; The Historical Figure of Jesus … E.P. Sanders is a very well known Christian writer on the history of Jesus, and of course he believes that Jesus was certainly real). In other words what we have discovered as “gospels”, ie the earliest dated remnants etc., are themselves a compilation made from all sorts of disparate short preaching stories/sermons … and presumably many other such sermons existed but were omitted from the compiled gospels (omitted perhaps because they did not fit the story that, by that date (eg 200AD) the Church wanted to tell about belief in Jesus).

 

[theheno]

Thanks for that detailed answer Ian, food for thought there. Any HJ people might answer my first question, I'm trying to get both points of view clear in my head.

 

[dejudge]

The next thing to say is that, because we don't have any gospels at all from the first century (not even the tiniest fragment), we do not really know what any first century gospels might have said about Jesus. They might quite easily have included passages that showed they were writing about a messiah (ie a “Christ”) who was only ever a figure from religious belief. And one reason to think that might be the case, is that, that is the way Jesus is actually described in Paul's letters (and they are supposed to be the earliest writing about Jesus, ie pre-dating the gospels).

There is no historical evidence at all, none whatsoever, that any Epistle predated the Gospels. No NT Gospel writer quoted a single verse or phrase from the so-called Pauline Epistle, not even the author of Acts who claimed to have travelled with Paul around the Roman Empire during his supposed missionary activities.

We know exactly how so-called Scholars made up early dates for the Epistles they simply used Acts of the Apostles which is known as a useless fiction.

The very so-called Epistles show that the authors were aware of Jesus stories found in the Gospels.

And finally- afaik even Christian writers and bible scholars accept that the gospels were not originally in the form that we see now. Instead those gospels probably started out as numerous so-called short “pericopes”, ie short religious sermons or preaching stories, which were later gathered together to create each gospel (see for example E.P. Sanders; The Historical Figure of Jesus … E.P. Sanders is a very well known Christian writer on the history of Jesus, and of course he believes that Jesus was certainly real). In other words what we have discovered as “gospels”, ie the earliest dated remnants etc., are themselves a compilation made from all sorts of disparate short preaching stories/sermons … and presumably many other such sermons existed but were omitted from the compiled gospels (omitted perhaps because they did not fit the story that, by that date (eg 200AD) the Church wanted to tell about belief in Jesus).

Again, there is no historical evidence at all, none whatsoever, that the Gospels were earlier than the 2nd century and that they were originally a compilation of short/preaching/sermons.

It must never be forgotten that the NT Gospels were falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to deceive people of antiquity into thinking the Gospels were written long before c 70 CE or before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

The authors of the Epistles have been caught in their lies since the story that Jesus was crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven was invented long after Paul was supposedly dead.

There was no prophesied Jewish Messiah called Jesus of Nazareth up to the end of the 1st century or at least up to c 66-70 CE based on writings attributed to Joseph, Tacitus and Suetonius.

 

[Kapyong]

Readers should be aware that IanS likes to date books according to the earliest manuscript that still exists.

Scholars don't do that - else that would mean Homer was only written around the 9th or 10th century AD - nearly 2 millenia wrong.

IanS does not accept he is wrong on this. Do your own research on that topic.

Kapyong

 

[IanS]

Readers should be aware that IanS likes to date books according to the earliest manuscript that still exists. Scholars don't do that - else that would mean Homer was only written around the 9th or 10th century AD - nearly 2 millenia wrong.

IanS does not accept he is wrong on this. Do your own research on that topic.

Kapyong

I am certainly not "dating books according to the earliest manuscript that still exists". And I did not say that at all.

What I'm doing is pointing out that the information we have from that biblical writing is from much later than the 1st century.

We do not have any such writing from the 1st century. Even though bible scholars and Christian leaders etc. almost always claim that the gospels and letters date from about 50AD to 100AD ... well, we have none of that.

What actually exists are copies that were made centuries later. And we can only know what is said about Jesus in those much later copies. We do not know if it said the same things about Jesus in any 1st century gospels (if indeed there were any in the first century).

 

[theheno]

I understood Ian to mean what he just said. There's no physical evidence of the bible from the 1st century, so the dates I've always been told cannot be 100% certain.

 

[IanS]

I understood Ian to mean what he just said. There's no physical evidence of the bible from the 1st century, so the dates I've always been told cannot be 100% certain.

Yep. We can only go on the gospel stories that we do actually have. And none of those are from the first century (according to all bible scholars and other Christian pro-HJ writers).

We can't draw our conclusions from 1st century gospels or letters, because we don't have any of those!

If there were gospels written around 70AD to 100AD, then what did they say about Jesus? Nobody knows. Could it have been exactly the same as was written in (say) 3rd or 4th century copies? Might have been; who knows? Could it have been significantly different than what was being written by the 3rd or 4th century and later? … Might have been ; who knows” ….. etc etc.

 

[Thor 2]

Yep. We can only go on the gospel stories that we do actually have. And none of those are from the first century (according to all bible scholars and other Christian pro-HJ writers).

We can't draw our conclusions from 1st century gospels or letters, because we don't have any of those!

If there were gospels written around 70AD to 100AD, then what did they say about Jesus? Nobody knows. Could it have been exactly the same as was written in (say) 3rd or 4th century copies? Might have been; who knows? Could it have been significantly different than what was being written by the 3rd or 4th century and later? … Might have been ; who knows” ….. etc etc.

Bah! One of these days somebody will dig up the original notebooks used by some of the faithful, as they followed Jesus around and noted down his utterances. The RCC will grab them and on the shelf next to the Turin Shroud they will go.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

But he doesn't make such a blanket dismissal, it's a subtle difference but what he makes a blanket dismissal of is the so called historical evidence for a person called Jesus who started Christianity.

There is nothing outside the texts of those that believe in a god called Jesus that evidences that he ever existed,

A 'subtle difference', or simply selection bias?

I'm sure there are other historical figures for which we also have no direct evidence outside the writings of their followers. But just because other records may not have been written or did not survive, doesn't mean the people didn't exist. So what we have here is an absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.

For most of us this would be enough. But not dejudge. Why the desperate need to make a blanket dismissal in this case but not others? I sense a religious motive - a need to bolster one's unbelief against the mere possibility that the myth might have some small secular basis in fact, for fear that any chink in this armor could lead to a return of belief. Those of us who are comfortable in our atheism have no need for such strident denial.

if one thinks it is likely or 50/50 that Jesus existed

Let's ignore the name 'Jesus' for now, and consider:- how likely is it that Christianity started out as a small sect with a charismatic leader, as opposed to a group of people who got together and decided to invent one? History shows us that it is highly likely, while the alternative is rarer.

why not also hold the same view about the old testament god that the Christians claim is the same god as Jesus? After all there is just as much actual historical evidence that he was a real person.

It's not the same. The OT God was always a supernatural creator god, never a human.

According to the NT, Jesus was a man who claimed to have a special relationship with God. Ignore the credulous reporting of his claims and 'supernatural' tricks, and it is easy to come out with the impression that he was just another cult leader who got up to similar shenanigans, eventually getting himself killed for it (his lieutenants then having to invent a resurrection and ascension to explain his absence).

Perhaps the biography of Jesus was created out of whole cloth to provide a suitable leader for a religion that didn't have one, but if so the writers did a pretty good job - even to the point of undermining their attempt to deify him (some passages make you wonder about Jesus's own confidence in being the 'chosen one'). One has to wonder why they needed to do this.

OTOH, if stories about an actual cult leader already existed then they just had to exploit them. It stands to reason that if such a cult leader did exist then some of the stories probably had at least some basis in fact, and it might be possible to strip away the embellishments to reveal it.

It is simply that our cultures in what are or at least were originally "Christian" countries that make us prone to the idea that Jesus "probably" was a "real" person, it is a baked in assumption. Step beyond that presumption and you see he was no more likely to have been a real person than as I said Zeus, Apollo, Vishnu or Xemu.

I think it's more than that. Compare the Greek myths to the NT, and Jesus comes across as far more believable as a real person than Zeus or Apollo.

A better parallel might be Robin Hood. Again, the name was quite popular (only for a robber rather than a savoir) and the established narrative (a mishmash and embellishments of earlier stories) is obvious fiction. Also,

There is at present little or no scholarly support for the view that tales of Robin Hood have stemmed from mythology or folklore, from fairies or other mythological origins, any such associations being regarded as later development. It was once a popular view, however. The "mythological theory" dates back at least to 1584, when Reginald Scot identified Robin Hood with the Germanic goblin "Hudgin" or Hodekin and associated him with Robin Goodfellow... While the outlaw often shows great skill in archery, swordplay and disguise, his feats are no more exaggerated than those of characters in other ballads, such as Kinmont Willie, which were based on historical events.

So here we have a case with no religious baggage, but which has attracted similar views. Note the objection to the myth theory - 'his feats are no more exaggerated...'. The general consensus is that the story of Robin Hood has its roots in a historical character whose existence cannot be independently verified. If Jesus was the leader of a cult that became Christianity, his feats are no more exaggerated than those of other cult leaders. By this measure, both Robin Hood and Jesus could have been real people who have become the subject of myth.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Bah! One of these days somebody will dig up the original notebooks used by some of the faithful, as they followed Jesus around and noted down his utterances. The RCC will grab them and on the shelf next to the Turin Shroud they will go.

You may scoff, but we don't know that it won't happen.

However one thing we do know is the RCC has contemporaneous proof that the Turin Shroud is a fake, but they they let people believe in it anyway. The 'original notebooks' on Jesus could largely refute what is written in the Bible and it wouldn't sway the faithful.

Many already don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible, and I suspect most of the church hierarchy are atheists. They believe in God as much as any business executive believes in their product. I have no problem with that so long as they act responsibly when dealing with things that matter (science, the environment, social responsibilities etc.).

 

[dejudge]

.... The OT God was always a supernatural creator god, never a human.

So, when was Jesus ever a real human?

According to the NT, Jesus was a man who claimed to have a special relationship with God. Ignore the credulous reporting of his claims and 'supernatural' tricks, and it is easy to come out with the impression that he was just another cult leader who got up to similar shenanigans, eventually getting himself killed for it (his lieutenants then having to invent a resurrection and ascension to explain his absence).

What a ridiculous contradictory post!!!

You know that according to the NT Jesus was born of a Ghost yet you claim [by amnesia or dishonesty] that according to the NT Jesus was a man.

Please look at the NT again.

Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Jesus was never human always fiction.