So did Jesus live or what?

[jjramsey]

There were plenty of 'Christs' and Messiahs running around.

Yes, and when they died, their followers either scattered or moved onto another would-be Messiah--if they weren't killed. No one still claimed that they were still a Messiah after their demises, but rather being stomped out by the Romans was taken as an indicator that one wasn't the Messiah.

Christus says nothing more than 'an annointed one'. You really think that Jesus Christ was a unique conception of the time?

A "unique conception of the time"? Not sure what that means, but I think the answer is no.

However, that doesn't mean that he wasn't uniquely different from all the other would-be messiahs. For whatever reason, he was the only messiah who was still proclaimed as a messiah after death and had a growing post-mortem Gentile following. If you talk about a "Christ" doing stuff in Judea, you could be talking about a dozen different persons. If you talk about someone proclaiming a "Christ" in Corinth or Rome, well, that pares down the number of suspects to one.

Remove the biblical references (since they are completely and utterly suspect)

This is tantamount to saying that since the New Testament is unreliable, it can be treated as if it did not exist. This makes no sense. Any theory about Jesus has to explain why the content of the New Testament is what it is. If one insists that Jesus was the Son of God, etc., then one has to account for the historical problems with the New Testament. If one claims that Jesus is a more mundane person, one has to deal with issues such as whether the empty tomb account was wholly legendary or partly factual. If one claims that Jesus was wholly mythical, then one has to account for the presence of embarrassing material in the Gospels and the references to Jesus having brothers. Pretending that the NT doesn't exist is ignoring evidence, period.

 

[geni]

Well, Josephus pretty much describe any and all figures that had just about any form of influence in Judea at that time. Aside from the Eusebius interpolation, he doesn't even mention Jesus. And even if that's NOT an interpolation, it's a very short passage, considering the usual Josephus stuff.

But why should jesus have any influence. He survived in the capitial a few days before being neutalised.

John the Baptist who aprently put together enough infulence to worry herod racks up ~260 words.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Just a note. The letters are dated PRIOR to the gospels.

Yes, I knew that. The two statements shouldn't be taken as directly related one to the other.

 

[ruach1]

I've often seen it claimed that the story of Jesus was fashioned in the motif of a dying-rising god, but the evidence that there really was such a motif is pretty slim. As far as I've seen, Aliyan Baal is about it. The rest is reading Christian motifs into pagan myth.

There were certain aspects of the Orpheus mystery cult of the Greco-Roman period. There are others I've heard of that I can't quite get to this moment. All are similar to the dying and rising god (and eating of the god for that matter, John 6:53), but the facts surrounding the person of Jesus (as you mentioned earlier) outweigh the dismissal of the veracity of the Christ and the Gospel on the grounds of "its just another dying and rising god motif."

 

[Dr Adequate]

I have yet to find any christian apologist who can refute this article:
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

That is so stupid. The word-twisting, the triumphant production of a straw man, the false conclusions from the theory being examined...

I was half-expecting him to tell me that it was unscientific to believe in the existence of Jesus because you can't replicate him in a test-tube.

If that's atheism, I'm going to convert to agnosticism as a protest.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Yes, and when they died, their followers either scattered or moved onto another would-be Messiah--if they weren't killed. No one still claimed that they were still a Messiah after their demises, but rather being stomped out by the Romans was taken as an indicator that one wasn't the Messiah.

A "unique conception of the time"? Not sure what that means, but I think the answer is no.

However, that doesn't mean that he wasn't uniquely different from all the other would-be messiahs. For whatever reason, he was the only messiah who was still proclaimed as a messiah after death and had a growing post-mortem Gentile following. If you talk about a "Christ" doing stuff in Judea, you could be talking about a dozen different persons. If you talk about someone proclaiming a "Christ" in Corinth or Rome, well, that pares down the number of suspects to one.

You are confusing the fact that today (and at a time after the establishment of the religion) we 'recognized' there was a supposed person named Yeshua attributed to exist (mainly by way of the gospels interestingly) and that at that earlier time, there was not such a clear recognition (not one clearly documented). Many Christians at the time seem to have had the symbology of the fish, the lamb, the cross (a very generic symbol for Rome, well known for crucifixion), the dove. Not a single symbol of a man on a cross or a man (or a person, god, god-man, so on and so on). And Gnostics seem to speak of logos and spirit without recognition at all of a human counterpart. Tacitus never mentions 'a person'. Only the term 'Christus'. This could be a mistake in attributing the word as a proper name or using a generic term when no such knowledge of a person was known.

This is tantamount to saying that since the New Testament is unreliable, it can be treated as if it did not exist. This makes no sense. Any theory about Jesus has to explain why the content of the New Testament is what it is. If one insists that Jesus was the Son of God, etc., then one has to account for the historical problems with the New Testament. If one claims that Jesus is a more mundane person, one has to deal with issues such as whether the empty tomb account was wholly legendary or partly factual. If one claims that Jesus was wholly mythical, then one has to account for the presence of embarrassing material in the Gospels and the references to Jesus having brothers. Pretending that the NT doesn't exist is ignoring evidence, period.

Yes, the NT is totally unreliable. It was written by people with motives and good imaginations, some not very admirable. The gospels are not historical documentation. They are a fanciful elaboration sprinkled with historical (sometimes very inaccurate or unsubstantiated) places and people as a means to illustrate and affix the doctrine, beliefs, and other philosophies associated with the religion as it stood at the time of the writings.

Did you read the link given by Peter S.? I agree with a good part of it and that agrees with much of what I've read independently. Even if some of this is biased or using questionable resources, the logic and other resources paint a grim picture for authenticity in historic documentation.

Everything before the start of Jesus' ministry is so highly suspect as to be dismissed right out of hand, without further comment whatsoever at all (does that make sense?). Much of what is attributed to Jesus' ministry (the miracles and a good part of the sayings* and actions) can be considered fable. The trial and basic crucifixion may have validity. Any bull about resurrection and reappearance goes along the wayside with all that before the ministry.

I repeat: not much to go by. Jesus, stripped of fantasy, hyperbole, and nonsense, is a very vague, fuzzy figure to say the least.

*It has been quite effectively shown that many of the 'sayings' attributed to Jesus can be traced to various other religions and philosophies, some verbatim!

 

[UrsulaV]

I've often seen it claimed that the story of Jesus was fashioned in the motif of a dying-rising god, but the evidence that there really was such a motif is pretty slim. As far as I've seen, Aliyan Baal is about it. The rest is reading Christian motifs into pagan myth.

Wow, you're definitely skipping some big ones there.

Let's see--Osiris died, was resurrected. Had women attending his death and crying over him and everything.

Dionysus died, was resurrected. Also attended by women. (And was a virgin birth, too!)

Persian Mithras was not only super popular in Rome at the time, he was buried in a tomb and rose from there.

Tammuz, Akkadian, and Damuzi, Sumerian, were two versions of a vegetation deity who dies during summer, and is rescued from the underworld by Ishtar, who brings him back to life.

Atys, Phrygian deity, (a religion well-known in Rome at the time, as Atys's lover, Cybele, was biiig in Rome) had a lot of the resurrection motifs going on, being a deity associated with grain, harvest, sowing, etc. Supposedly his priests used to castrate themselves. You can say whatever you like about your belief in Christianity, but man, THAT's an expression of faith right there. Or something.

A number of other gods also did the death and rebirth trick, in areas rather less likely to be conflated with Jesus, but enough that we can point out it's a pretty common motif--the twin heros of Mayan mythology are killed playing ball, and raise themselves from the dead five days later, according to the Popul Vuh, Odin dies on the tree but comes back to life having regained wisdom, Coyote gets himself killed so many times and in so many inventive ways, and bounces back with such verve that he bears a closer resemblance to the Coyote who chased the roadrunner than Jesus, etc, etc.

We can argue all you want about how much influence any of the local myths might have had on the myths of Jesus, but there were definitely a LOT of them in the area at the time, many of them well entrenched and establish long before Christianity.

And as a professor I had, in a class on the conflict between Romans and Christians, pointed out--in the climate at the time, this sort of myth was commonplace. You weren't wowed by rising from the dead, you said "Oh, yeah, that happened to a friend of a friend of my cousin's." These were miracles that you heard about people doing all the time. Any self-respecting god did a whole bunch of 'em--water in to wine, virgin births, healing the sick, raising from the dead, casting out demons, these were Standard Miracles. We live in a rather colder age, but at the time, people would have viewed these much differently--not as earth-shattering events, but as "Yeah, that happens..."

 

[Dr Adequate]

They are a fanciful elaboration...

Yes, but the question is: are they a fanciful elaboration of real events? (as "elaboration" would seem to suggest).

 

[kuroyume0161]

Yes, but the question is, are they a fanciful eleboration of real events (as "elaboration" would seem to suggest).

Well, that's the problem. We don't know! Noone was cognizant enough to make and retain records of any sort as crossreference to validate any part of these 'stories', even the parts which seem plausible. What a joy, even as an atheist, it would be to find the precursors to the Mark gospel which might record something of the original person who may have morphed into Jesus Christ SuperStar!

And you have to realize that that Peter S. link is a synopsis, with bias spackled througout the dissertation, I'll agree. But a good part of it is based upon a large database of research. It would literally take several encyclopedic volumes of texts to consolidate all of the research into the historicity of Jesus, the reliability of the recounts and authors of the NT, and the damage done by apologetics and history rewriting thereafter (such as basically eradicating Gnosticism). I have seven books on the Apocrypha and other idiosyncracies of Christianity, several more on more general Judeo-Christian opposition, as well as a full resource on the Bible itself (QuickVerse) - which, as noted previously and often, I've read completely in a couple of English forms (KJV and NAV).

The problem is that the bible is a canonical representation of the RCC. There are other bibles, other interpretations, non-canonical inclusions, non-canonical exclusions (the Apocrypha) and so forth. Really, one could spend an entire life learning Latin, Greek, Hebrew, history, theology, and a slew of other studies and still not attain a definitive answer. Too much contamination, too little scientifically verifiable support.

One must remember that the 'church' had a free hand in molding the 'mythos', even urging forgery and interpolation (again, Eusebius) as a means to establish the doctrine that the 'church' supported.

*edited to clarify

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Here's a great page on the historical development of the OT and the NT :

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

I don't like the guy because he's a liberal idiot, but his research in this particular area is considerable.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Here's a great page on the historical development of the OT and the NT :

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

I don't like the guy because he's a liberal idiot, but his research in this particular area is considerable.

Very interesting read, Francois. And it brings back some of what I had read previously with great clarity.

Very recommended as a preface to further 'argumentation'.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Since I'm tired and 'relaxed', I'll part with a story of my own.

Jesus and his disciples had just recently partaken of a Passover feast (the Last Supper). He and a select group went into the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus wished to prepare for the inevitable (betrayal of Judas and the subsequent events). Once there, and as Jesus did his preparations, the other apostles fell fast asleep. (Matthew 26)

Jesus did his pleading and returned a couple of times to wake his select apostles from their slumber and remind them of their reason for being there (the number of times varies). Then Judas and Roman soldiers arrived, Judas well paid with 30 pieces of silver and waiting to drive home that kiss. Jesus was arrested and thereafter separated from his apostles (until his suspectly miraculous reappearance after resurrection).

When were the words/thoughts of Jesus said in private whilst the apostles slept, whilst alone, conveyed so as to be written?

I'm not using the usual contradictions which Christian apologetics have strived hard to make amiable. This is a situation of information presented to the reader as authoritative without any possible means of acquisition!

Between this time and that of the Jesus' death, the apostles not once met or spoke with Jesus. And there is no other party who could have been there (well, except for God himself). Far be it for me to dispute personally subjective revelation from an omnipotent god!

Did Jesus quickly relate his conversation with daddy as he was being dragged off? Was one of the apostles only pretending to sleep, all the while eavesdropping on the transpiring personal conversation? Unconvincing both.

Put in this context, if you cannot see the 'narrative' of a story, then you are too emotionally involved to be objective about the problems (and there are many others with similar situational issues).

I was once 'emotionally involved' and believed this stuff 'hook, line, sinker'. Since then, I think that I've reached a state of knowledge, maturity, and skepticism to think otherwise.

 

[kmortis]

<snip intro>
When were the words/thoughts of Jesus said in private whilst the apostles slept, whilst alone, conveyed so as to be written?
<snip middle>

Did Jesus quickly relate his conversation with daddy as he was being dragged off? Was one of the apostles only pretending to sleep, all the while eavesdropping on the transpiring personal conversation? Unconvincing both.

<snip outtro>

I was once "discussing" the Book of Acts with an Epsicapailian friend of mine. I brought up my issue with the authors of the various NT books putting in dialouge when it was bloody well obvious that they could NOT have witnessed the speaking. He responded by saying that it was rather commonplace at the time for chronichlers to fabricate monoluoges, discussions and other speeches inorder to advance the story.

Now, this friend is very lerned in many areas, and I was tired of debating the whole thing, so I didn't ask for a source that describes this; but I do trust him so...

Anyhoo, a) does anyone know this to be true?
b) If it is, it explains the issue that I highlighed here, and draws into question how much of what is reported to have been said, really was said.

 

[ruach1]

snip
Yes, the NT is totally unreliable. It was written by people with motives and good imaginations, some not very admirable. The gospels are not historical documentation. They are a fanciful elaboration sprinkled with historical (sometimes very inaccurate or unsubstantiated) places and people as a means to illustrate and affix the doctrine, beliefs, and other philosophies associated with the religion as it stood at the time of the writings.

The NT is totally unreliable? As what? For whom? An historical account? For 21st century videocentric non-believers looking for irrefutable proof? Probably so.
But there are more perspectives on the NT than this, and until one is able to see beyond oneself, one will never understand the NT to be the beacon of heavenly light guiding one to and with the Christ.

I repeat: not much to go by. Jesus, stripped of fantasy, hyperbole, and nonsense, is a very vague, fuzzy figure to say the least.

From your perspective, this is certainly a fair statement. For those of the faith whose spirits are interwoven with the dynamic of I Cor 1:18-25, Jesus is much more than that which your perspective can allow.

*It has been quite effectively shown that many of the 'sayings' attributed to Jesus can be traced to various other religions and philosophies, some verbatim!

Yes this is true. Kung Fu Tzu (Confucious) has a version of the Golden Rule. However, this hardly diminishes Jesus' authority as the Christ--at least for the faithful.

Simply put, membership has its privileges. Faith is like a light switch which, when turned on, "activates" the "light" and makes the faithful able to see what the faithless cannot--in this case the Christ as Emmanuel--God for us. I don't want to sound elitist and arrogantly exclusive, but this is just how I see the perspective on Christ dynamic at work.

 

[Huntster]

...As it is said, the only difference between me and you is that I reject all beliefs base on (blind) faith whereas you reject all but one.

And, again, that is incorrect.

There appears to be a common reading comprehension problem around here.

I do not reject most of the other religious faiths I have studied. I have spent a good deal of time in comparative religious study. The result was that I stuck with the Roman Catholicism of my upbringing while gaining a new appreciation for so many more religions, including Native American shamanism and Taoism.

I am appreciative of how they are alike, not as much in how they differ.

What I am impressed with in skepticism (which I classify as a religion) is in it's utter gloomy penchant for doubt. It is the religion of depression. There is no hope whatsoever. There is no progression (unless it is a downward spiral). It is unlike almost all other major world religions in those aspects.

And, finally, all faith is not "blind". I accept the written historical accounts, then use "judgement" supplemented with faith to arrive at my beliefs. That is not enough evidence for you. In accordance with the basic tenets of skepticism, however, there can never be enough evidence for you.

How can one achieve substantial physical evidence regarding a non-physical phenomenon? It is an oxymoron. That is why the Nazarean so regularly stressed faith.

But a religion based on doubt cannot understand and will regularly reject faith. Doubt and faith are exact opposites.

Skeptics have cornered themselves in a physical world guaranteed to end. It is a dead end road.

 

[Huntster]

...1.3 billion muslims can't be wrong, can they ?

Seems pretty unlikely to me.

 

[Huntster]

The fact of the matter is that Pilate is mentionned by roman records. That's INDEPENDENT confirmation of the existence of Pilate. There is no such thing for Jesus....

...Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...

Annals 15.44

 

[Fungrim]

I am appreciative of how they are alike, not as much in how they differ.

That sounds close to theosophy. Problem is of course on what grounds the differences between the religions should be ignored.

What I am impressed with in skepticism (which I classify as a religion) is in it's utter gloomy penchant for doubt. It is the religion of depression. There is no hope whatsoever. There is no progression (unless it is a downward spiral). It is unlike almost all other major world religions in those aspects.

Sorry to break it to you, but if you define scepticism as a religion, you've got a problem. Also, why do you think it is depressing? Do you mean sceptics are more depressed? Any evidence for that is such case?

Skeptics have cornered themselves in a physical world guaranteed to end. It is a dead end road.

While you dream of things that are not. Fair enough.

 

[Fungrim]

Seems pretty unlikely to me.

So when the majority of humanity thought earth flat, you think it is pretty unlikely they where wrong?

 

[Huntster]

So when the majority of humanity thought earth flat, you think it is pretty unlikely they where wrong?

They were wrong, but didn't know it until proof, or overwhelming evidence, was available.

So someone like yourself, not believing anything without proof, would have wandered throughout 5,000 years of human history propounding that the world wasn't flat, because nobody had provided you proof of that?

Please...........................