Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Yes because they were leaders of an Empire, unlike Jesus who would have been a backwoods peasant. We have to work with the evidence we got.

Not true. You make stuff up.

Jesus of Nazareth was not a backwoods peasant in the NT Canon.

Jesus of Nazareth was God Creator.

Colossians 1:16

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him…

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

[Delvo]

I wonder how many other real historical figures we'd have to claim were fictional if "but we don't have the testimony of somebody claiming to have met him/her" were a real thing.

 

[Tassman]

The sudden start of a religious cult does not determine that the deity worshiped by them is human.

It didn’t start as a religious cult, necessarily. Although it certainly became one later. But that’s not the argument.

You have no historical evidence of the character called Jesus of Nazareth and anyone associated with him, including supposed family and early followers.

There’s some. Scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source of Jesus’ existence.

Christians writers have already explained how the Jesus cult originated.

Nevertheless, virtually all scholars of the period agree that Jesus the man existed.

The Jesus cult of Christians began when people believed a story that God came down from heaven impregnated a Virgin and produced his only begotten Son, Jesus.

That’s not how the Jesus cult began. The virgin birth story only appears in two gospels (Matthew and Luke) and are not dated until 50 to 60 years after Jesus death.

 

[IanS]

Yes because they were leaders of an Empire, unlike Jesus who would have been a backwoods peasant. We have to work with the evidence we got.

The evidence that you "got" is not evidence of a human Jesus ever being known to anyone.

The evidence in Paul's letters is that the writer believed he had received a divine revelation from God, from which he suddenly realised that ancient "scripture" revealed a messiah of the past who he called "Iesous", ie Yehosua (which was translated in 11th century English as the name Jesus) ...

... the evidence is that Paul did not know any such person as Yehosua/Jesus, but he believed it as a prophecy which he thought had been revealed by God from ancient "scripture" .... That Is The Evidence!

Paul was not describing a human person … human people do not rise from the dead after 3 days … they do not appear as spirits speaking from the skies … they are not supernatural offspring of a heavenly Yahweh.

Paul may have believed that this supernatural messiah from God had once been present on Earth … but what people believe (especially religious fanatics 2000 years ago) is not evidence of reality … religious belief is not evidence of reality.

 

[IanS]

Didn't I already tell you that's irrelevant. Paul thought David was a historical person and a human so saying someone was the "seed of David" meant he was human to him. Why is that difficult for you to understand?

Whether or not Paul believed David was a real person is irrelevant - it does not change that fact that Paul's religious beliefs do not create reality!

If as many scholars now think, David was not a real person, then that fictional king cannot have sired a line of real descendents ending 1000 years later with the birth of a human Jesus! "Why is that difficult for you to understand?"

What Paul believed (from divine revelation) does not matter ... his religious beliefs are not evidence of reality ...

... and in fact, his religious beliefs are clearly NOT compatible with reality! And that is the undeniably clear evidence from his letters …

... he believed that a Christ he had never known, had risen from the dead – but that belief is NOT true, it's not reality …

... he believed that he had a physical divine revelation from God … that belief was not true!, it was only his religious imagination …

... he believed that he and hundreds of other people had witnessed a dead messiah appearing to them from the skies; that belief was not true …

... Paul's religious beliefs about his Christ-Jesus were not true, they were not reality.

 

[IanS]

Please, please!!! Ordinary human beings do not resurrect!!

.

They can be by a divine power (according to theology). You know that Jewish apocalypticists believed that in the end times, God would raise people from the dead?

What?? You are now claiming that “ordinary human beings” ... “can be (resurrected) by a divine power”!!?? … no, they certainly cannot be resurrected by any such non-existent power!

You seem to be extremely confused. Look, just because some religious fanatics believed that Jesus could resurrect through divine power, that mere belief does not make it true! … it is emphatically NOT true that Jesus could ever have resurrected through any power, divine or otherwise! …

… no person called Jesus ever resurrected from the dead.

You are constantly presenting ancient religious beliefs that are unarguably untrue, and claiming those untrue beliefs to be evidence of truth in Jesus ... but their untrue religious beliefs are not reality ... untrue beliefs are not evidence of a human Jesus.

 

[Delvo]

Wow... an post entirely about what Paul supposedly thought, followed immediately by the very next post, by the same writer, claiming not to think that what Paul thought matters

 

[IanS]

I wonder how many other real historical figures we'd have to claim were fictional if "but we don't have the testimony of somebody claiming to have met him/her" were a real thing.

That's also an argument that we have been over countless times -

- first ; we are not claiming Jesus WAS fictional (as if claiming that to be be a fact) ... we (possible exception of dejudge) are only pointing out why he MAY have been only fictional.


- second ; those other figures of history do not matter, because in each case some real person did do the things that those individuals are remembered for ... eg, even if some particular named Roman Emperor did not exist, it remains a true fact that whatever his correct name was some Roman Emperor did exist at that time and we have vast evidence of what that person did ...

... same for claims that perhaps certain named ancient philosophers did not exist ... it remains a fact that someone (or some group of people), ie real people, did start the philosophical movements that are associated with those names ... the events were unarguably real (the philosophies existed from that early time), and some real person or persons had to be responsible for that ...

... but none of that is true for Jesus ... in his case the claimed events were NOT real, and therefore it was not true that anyone had to exist to cause those fictional events.


Also, we do not care whether someone like Alexander (to take an example commonly trotted out by HJ posters/believers), because he is not today the basis of a worldwide movement of millions of faithful followers who's leaders attempt to influence governments to change children's education, to change tax laws, to control peoples lives inc. the lives of young children with threats of being sent to Hell etc. ...

.. the existence or otherwise of such people as Socrates, Pythagoras, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar is completely irrelevant today - nothing at all hangs on their existence ... but the complete opposite is true for Jesus where the daily lives of millions of people are very directly affected by beliefs that Jesus must have existed.

 

[dejudge]

The sudden start of a religious cult does not determine that the deity worshiped by them is human.

It didn’t start as a religious cult, necessarily. Although it certainly became one later. But that’s not the argument.

Christian writers admitted the Jesus Christian cult originated with a Gospel story that God came down from heaven and lived in a daughter of man and those who believed that story were called Christians. See Aristides Apology.

Jesus was always a supernatural being - a God/man.

You have no historical evidence of the character called Jesus of Nazareth and anyone associated with him, including supposed family and early followers.

There’s some. Scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source of Jesus’ existence.

It has been proven that the existing copy of Tacitus' Annals 15.44 was manipulated.

Tacitus did not write about Christians.

Christians writers have already explained how the Jesus cult originated.

Nevertheless, virtually all scholars of the period agree that Jesus the man existed.

All Scholars do not agree that Jesus existed as a man.

Many, many Christian Bible Scholars [most likely in the thousands] agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed as a God/ man, [the son of God born of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin].

The vast amount of Christian Bible Scholars even worship Jesus of Nazareth as a God and pray to him for their salvation so that they can go to heaven.

The Jesus cult of Christians began when people believed a story that God came down from heaven impregnated a Virgin and produced his only begotten Son, Jesus.

That’s not how the Jesus cult began. The virgin birth story only appears in two gospels (Matthew and Luke) and are not dated until 50 to 60 years after Jesus death.

What you say does not makes sense.

Christian writers said how the cult started so it does not matter when gMatthew or gLuke were written.

The Christian cult started when people of antiquity believed the story that God came down from heaven and lived in the daughter of man.

gMatthew and gLuke merely corroborate that Christians of antiquity did believe such stories.

In effect, the Christian cult of antiquity started with the belief that their Jesus was a supernatural being.

 

[IanS]

I really want to understand this. Can I ask: why does not having someone in history claiming to have met a human Jesus impact the case for the historicity of Jesus? And how much does it impact that case, in your opinion?

(The claim "Jesus figures were a dime a dozen in those days" is based on the assumption of the existence of figures for whom we have the same or less evidence, and certainly no-one claiming to have met those figures. Depending on where you want to draw the line, it's true of pretty much everyone in ancient history. All texts are copies of copies of copies.)

Also: can you clarify what you mean by "human Jesus"? I think getting a common understanding of the terminology is required to have a good conversation. When people on this thread talk about a "supernatural Jesus", I'm never sure whether they mean a human Jesus with supernatural powers, or a human Jesus who ascended to heaven after death, or God Incarnate.

Thanks.

None of those other figures from ancient history have any importance or relevance to the lives of anyone today. If you care to name who your are talking about as any of these "dime a dozen" Jesus figures (I think you mean people claiming to be the promised Christ), then for any of them we can easily see that half the world is not worshipping them today - they are of zero importance to anyone except perhaps a tiny handful of historian/bible-scholars.

If Jesus were merely in that position, where he was of zero relevance today, e.g. where Christianity had died out by (say) the 4th century, then nobody here would be bothering to question or care about whether he was real or not.

But it's precisely because Jesus and Christianity has become such a huge factor in the lives of millions of people today (in fact it's a huge factor in everyone's lives, inc. atheists and those of other religions, because super-power nations like the USA and most of the EU still allow the Christian church to be involved in all sorts of law making, in children's education, in taxation & financial affairs of whole nations etc.), it's precisely and entirely for that reason that educated people today do question what is obviously and unarguably a huge mass of untrue "history" about Jesus as the figure upon which the entire faith is based.

It's an important issue (worldwide), because Christianity has become so important and so influential upon governments and nations worldwide. So it certainly would matter if it turned out to be the case that Jesus never even existed ... in fact it would be headline news all over the world ever after!

 

[IanS]

Wow... an post entirely about what Paul supposedly thought, followed immediately by the very next post, by the same writer, claiming not to think that what Paul thought matters

You really must stop misrepresenting things. Why don't you quote what I actually said!

What I said was that we know what "Paul supposedly thought", ie what he believed, because his letters are filled with what he believed. He believed all sorts of untrue religious fiction about talking spirits in the sky, about divine revelations from Yahweh in the heavens, about a "Christ" rising from the dead etc.

And what I have said about his beliefs, is not as you just claimed that his thoughts/beliefs "don't matter" ... what I said was that his religious beliefs are not evidence that such things were ever true.

 

[Brainache]

None of those other figures from ancient history have any importance or relevance to the lives of anyone today. If you care to name who your are talking about as any of these "dime a dozen" Jesus figures (I think you mean people claiming to be the promised Christ), then for any of them we can easily see that half the world is not worshipping them today - they are of zero importance to anyone except perhaps a tiny handful of historian/bible-scholars.

If Jesus were merely in that position, where he was of zero relevance today, e.g. where Christianity had died out by (say) the 4th century, then nobody here would be bothering to question or care about whether he was real or not.

But it's precisely because Jesus and Christianity has become such a huge factor in the lives of millions of people today (in fact it's a huge factor in everyone's lives, inc. atheists and those of other religions, because super-power nations like the USA and most of the EU still allow the Christian church to be involved in all sorts of law making, in children's education, in taxation & financial affairs of whole nations etc.), it's precisely and entirely for that reason that educated people today do question what is obviously and unarguably a huge mass of untrue "history" about Jesus as the figure upon which the entire faith is based.

It's an important issue (worldwide), because Christianity has become so important and so influential upon governments and nations worldwide. So it certainly would matter if it turned out to be the case that Jesus never even existed ... in fact it would be headline news all over the world ever after!

Then what?

Are people going to give up their irrational religious beliefs because some online boffin thinks sperm banks in the sky are more plausible than cult members ascribing divine qualities to a dead leader?

Who are you going to prove it to? The Pope? Who is going to make sure all the Christians hear about it so they can correct their silly beliefs?

Will this be before the rapture? Asking for a friend...

 

[Jerrymander]

What?? You are now claiming that “ordinary human beings” ... “can be (resurrected) by a divine power”!!?? … no, they certainly cannot be resurrected by any such non-existent power!

You seem to be extremely confused. Look, just because some religious fanatics believed that Jesus could resurrect through divine power, that mere belief does not make it true! … it is emphatically NOT true that Jesus could ever have resurrected through any power, divine or otherwise! …

… no person called Jesus ever resurrected from the dead.

You are constantly presenting ancient religious beliefs that are unarguably untrue, and claiming those untrue beliefs to be evidence of truth in Jesus ... but their untrue religious beliefs are not reality ... untrue beliefs are not evidence of a human Jesus.

The dishonesty of you people is amazing. I stated that (according to theology). Ancient people could conceive of a regular human being risen from the dead by a god.

 

[Jerrymander]

Whether or not Paul believed David was a real person is irrelevant - it does not change that fact that Paul's religious beliefs do not create reality!

If as many scholars now think, David was not a real person, then that fictional king cannot have sired a line of real descendents ending 1000 years later with the birth of a human Jesus! "Why is that difficult for you to understand?"

Jesus being a real historical person doesn't depend on him being a descendant of David. The point is, if Paul believed Jesus was the seed of David then he thought he had a human life. You keep arguing that Paul thought Jesus was only a spiritual being. When I present evidence to the contrary you shift your position and say "so belief is evidence". It's really pathetic on your part.

Did Paul believe Jesus had a human life. Yes or no?

 

[IanS]

There’s some. Scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source of Jesus’ existence.

.

No there is not "some". Firstly - when you say that "scholarly consensus is that Jesus's execution is authentic", what you mean is that people who teach bible studies believe it's authentic. But those people who teach bible studies are almost all practicing Christians who are therefore not remotely by any stretch of the imagination unbiased neutral "historians" when it comes to belief in Jesus ... they are practically forced to believe in Jesus, otherwise their faith has to be abandoned!

Even the few biblical scholars who are no longer believing Christians, such as Bart Ehrman and Hector Avalos, were once (when they entered their profession), not merely faithful Christians, but actually evangelising street preachers who were absolutely drowning in their religious beliefs. So there is clearly a question there about how completely they are able to reject all remnants of what was for much of their lives a huge emotional commitment to belief in Jesus.

Second thing is - Tacitus cannot be shown to be an "independent" source at all! He was not even born at the claimed time of Jesus execution. So at the very best his writing can only be repeating hearsay from whatever Christians of his later time were saying about their religious beliefs of an earlier messiah. Tacitus does not even tell us who his source was for anything about Jesus ... so he's actually producing anonymous hearsay of events that he himself could have no knowledge of ... and that is just not credible as an "independent" source.

And as if all that were not enough (which it certainly is) – Thirdly ; we do not have any writing from Tacitus around the end of the 1st century. Instead what we actually have as the earliest writing from Tacitus are copies written a whopping 1000 years later! And those are apparently copies produced by an endless string of Christians, and where Christian copyists are known to have been in the frequent habit of altering original texts wherever they later came to believe that various things should be deleted and various other things added …. something produced that long after the believed events is utterly worthless as reliable evidence of something that the author may, or may not, have once produced merely as anonymous hearsay.

 

[Jerrymander]

Not true. You make stuff up.

Jesus of Nazareth was not a backwoods peasant in the NT Canon.
Jesus of Nazareth was God Creator.

Colossians 1:16

John 1

Lie.

 

[IanS]

Jesus being a real historical person doesn't depend on him being a descendant of David. The point is, if Paul believed Jesus was the seed of David then he thought he had a human life. You keep arguing that Paul thought Jesus was only a spiritual being. When I present evidence to the contrary you shift your position and say "so belief is evidence". It's really pathetic on your part.

Did Paul believe Jesus had a human life. Yes or no?

No, I do not say that Paul "thought Jesus was only a spiritual being". I don't think you will be able to find a quote of mine saying that (because that's not what I have ever believed).

What I have said about Paul's belief in Jesus is that he says himself that it "came from no man", and "nor was I taught it by anyone" ... instead he came to that belief because he says that by divine revelation "God was pleased to reveal his son in me" ... that is a description of religious belief, it is not a description of Paul ever knowing a human person called "Jesus" ... but if you ask "did Paul simply believe that Jesus was a human person?", then the answer has to be ... "No!" ... because the Jesus that Paul believed in, was supernatural ... and human people are not supernatural.

Paul may indeed have believed that this "Christ" had once been present on Earth. But in Paul's belief, that figure was not a normal human being.

If anything, if we are to guess slightly from all of Paul's descriptions, then he may have believed that Jesus had to adopt a human-like appearance in order to descend from the heavens down to Earth ... and you can find many descriptions of that sort of belief in the biblical writing. But that again, is not a real human person.

And it's entirely the opposite of "pathetic" to keep explaining to you, and which you apparently fail to understand, that religious beliefs do not count as evidence of reality.

 

[Darat]

And Julius and Augustus Caesar were called divine and worshiped. Guess they didn't exist. And there were Christian sects that thought Jesus was only human.

Your strawman has been pointed out to you several times, this now has to border on bad faith.

 

[IanS]

The dishonesty of you people is amazing. I stated that (according to theology). Ancient people could conceive of a regular human being risen from the dead by a god.

No, what you said was the following -

Please, please!!! Ordinary human beings do not resurrect!!
.

They can be by a divine power (according to theology). You know that Jewish apocalypticists believed that in the end times, God would raise people from the dead?

In the above ; dejudge says to you “Ordinary human beings do not resurrect!!” and your response to that was to say “They can be by a divine power (according to theology)”!! … look at your own words, you are saying that according to theology ordinary humans can indeed resurrect! …

… and what I said to you is that they certainly cannot resurrect (whether any theology says so or not!).

What you appear to be arguing is that Paul believed that a Jesus figure had resurrected from the dead. And what I am pointing out to you is that it does not matter whether or not Paul believed that, because that belief is simply not true!

Paul may well have believed that a figure known as Jesus once resurrected from the dead. But in that case his belief was wrong. And his mistaken beliefs about resurrection are NOT evidence of any reality for Jesus.

 

[Jerrymander]

Your strawman has been pointed out to you several times, this now has to border on bad faith.

It isn't a strawman. You guys are basically saying that if a person is thought of as divine or had supernatural powers that means they didn't exist. No scholar of ancient history thinks that way.