Was there a historical Jesus at all?

[Kapyong]

Yes. For ancient historians, the earlier sources are always thought to be more reliable.

Rubbish.
You're just making it up as you go.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

We know the gospels contain myth, but based on the evidence, they appear to contain legendary myths based on an actual historical figure.

False.
You BELIEVE this with an overwhelming passion.

But sadly, your evidence does not stand up to scrutiny at all.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Come on now, do I really have to do this? Is it not obvious to everyone here that the analogy is false?

The analogy is good.
The problem is YOU and YOUR beliefs.

You START with the BELIEF that Jesus was historical, then insist that Jesus was historical.

The facts are - we compare here two stories - both containing myths and legends, and also some elements of reality.

YOU simply insist ONE is historical and the other isn't.
That's the whole of your argument : "I believe".

Every post of yours is essentially the same :
"Jesus was historical, therefore this reference X is to a historical event (therefore I've shown Jesus WAS historical.)"


K.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

What handwaving? I said that there is no evidence that the authors knew each other or read each other. If you think they did, you are just going beyond the evidence. I also never said they couldn't have known about Paul. I said that they show no sign of having read Paul. Again, there is just no evidence.

So, those whole paragraphs which differ from Mark in the same word, in the same position are... coincidence? All over 300 of them?

And they managed to write Christian stuff some decades after Paul spread Christianity... completely without being influenced by Paul's protagonist or ideas?

Plus, it seems to me a bit disingenuous to accept what is exactly conjecture about the document Q, but essentially scoff at conjecture when it's not what you want to believe. One or the other. If you want more evidence than just matching paragraphs, fine, but then please do provide similar evidence for that document Q for example.

Why should I give a crap about what some church father thought in the fourth or fifth century?

Why should I give a crap about a rationalization that's even later than that by a millenium?

But basically what it says is that you're basically more Catholic than the Pope, so to speak. Even the RCC doesn't consider the four gospels to be independent confirmations.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yes. For ancient historians, the earlier sources are always thought to be more reliable.

Wait, wait. So (an estimated, not actually dated) 50 years earlier for the sources _you_ like is all that's needed to make them more reliable... but when it comes to the opinion of a major theologian that lived over a millenium before your favourite hypothesis, then it's why should you give a crap about it? It seems a little inconsistent.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I am not just implying it, I am directly saying it. The existence of Q is the most widely held view among historians and biblical scholars.

So, you support Q.
Whose existence is based on clear commonalities in the texts of the different Gospels.

I said that there is no evidence that the authors knew each other or read each other.

But you reject the argument that the authors read each other.
Which is based on the clear commonalties in the text of the different Gospels.


Yup,
you just make it up as you go.



K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I said :
"Tacitus does NOT make any claim that Jesus was a "real person". He merely repeated 2nd century Christian BELIEFS."

Maybe.

Certainly :

1. Tacitus refers to Pilate (*) with the WRONG title - the one used in Tacitus's time, NOT the correct one from Jesus' time. This shows Tacitus was using contemporary beliefs and legends, not based on any records or facts.

2. Tacitus refers to the condemned man with the Christian title "Christ", not the usual Roman name form such as "Jesus son of Joseph" or "Jesus of Nazareth" e.g. This shows that Tacitus was repeating Christian views, NOT Roman records or any historical facts.

Tacitus is evidence for 2nd century Christians believing in Christ.

So what?
We know there were 2nd century Christians believing in Christ.

Another FAILURE to actually show any EVIDENCE for a historical Jesus - this just goes on and on for ever. Christians repeat the SAME lists of alleged evidence; sceptics point out the obvious problems with them; the faithful argue and bluster and preach....

Some time later, the SAME list will get posted as if that's a slam dunk for Jesus, the sceptics point out the SAME errors, the faithful preach on and on ...


K.


(*) Have you realised he is not "Pilot" yet ?

From The Annals
"Christus, from whom their name is derived was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilot in the reign of Tiberius."

Up in the sky !
Is it a plane?
Is it a bird?

No, it's Pontius Pilot !

 

[pgwenthold]

Rubbish.
You're just making it up as you go.


K.

Um, yes and no. "Earlier versions of a source" are absolutely considered to be more reliable in terms of what that source originally said. Indeed, I would certainly consider a 100AD version of Mark to be more reliable to what the author wrote than a copy from 500AD.

However, Mark's original story about a legendary character allegedly born 70 years earlier is not more historically relevant than the Judas account written 100 later. If bluskool doesn't like my Wizard of Oz analogy, I could replace it with biographies of, say, Benjamin Franklin or Abraham Lincoln. Is a biography of Abraham Lincoln written in 1920 necessarily more reliable than one written in the year 2000? Even if they contain contradictions? As far as we know, perhaps the whole reason that a year 2000 biography is written is because the author is disgusted with all the blatently incorrect information being peddled in that original version? Maybe the whole reason the gospel of Judas was written was because the author thought the original gospels were so fictional that he needed to provide an authoritative, and more correct, in his view, account?

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Um, yes and no. "Earlier versions of a source" are absolutely considered to be more reliable in terms of what that source originally said. Indeed, I would certainly consider a 100AD version of Mark to be more reliable to what the author wrote than a copy from 500AD.

Indeed

I was just picking up on the word 'always'.

I certainly agree it is 'usually'.

But consider how sometimes a late mss is considered to be from an earlier tradition, and thus somewhat more reliable than another mss which is actually earlier.

However, Mark's original story about a legendary character allegedly born 70 years earlier is not more historically relevant than the Judas account written 100 later.

Yah,
especially if there was no history to start with.

There are various authors who have written about Luke Skywalker - that doesn't make him historical.

Essentially, the conversation with bluskool has gone like this :

bluskool : Jesus was historical, because his story includes feature X - and feature X can only be historical

sceptic : but what about this fictional story A which ALSO has feature X - showing that feature X CAN be in a fictional story

bluskool : wrong - story A is fictional, so Jesus is historical - your analogy fails !

sceptic : head. desk.


I just don't think bluskool realise he is STARTING with the fixed belief that Jesus is historical - so to him, every mention of a fictional or allegorical story is not related and can be dismissed a priori - because he ALREADY knows Jesus is real.

If bluskool doesn't like my Wizard of Oz analogy, I could replace it with biographies of, say, Benjamin Franklin or Abraham Lincoln. Is a biography of Abraham Lincoln written in 1920 necessarily more reliable than one written in the year 2000? Even if they contain contradictions?

That could work, but he's likely to say :
"they were REAL people ! See ! I was right"

As far as we know, perhaps the whole reason that a year 2000 biography is written is because the author is disgusted with all the blatently incorrect information being peddled in that original version? Maybe the whole reason the gospel of Judas was written was because the author thought the original gospels were so fictional that he needed to provide an authoritative, and more correct, in his view, account?

Yup.

That seems to be something like it - each author wrote what HE thought was the REAL story. But their idea of what was REAL was religious and ideoligical (according to the scriptures), and is not pinned down to any actual history.

If it was about HISTORY, they would all be at pains to connect it to history - e.g. "I Thomas whatsit saw this with my eyes in the 15th year of Tiberius" or "I spoked to Jesus face to gace in the Temple on the feast of blah blah".

There is NOTHING like that - instead of relying on historical markeres, they all use religious themes and legends, and feel free to change the story to change a theological point.

It's all stories and legends.


K.

 

[pgwenthold]

That could work, but he's likely to say :
"they were REAL people ! See ! I was right"

I thought of that, but the point is that while it is obvious that earlier texts mean nothing when it comes to accounts about fictional people, they also don't mean much when it comes to accounts about real people, either. IOW, there is no basis that "earlier versions of the story" means anything at all, either for real or fictional characters. Thus, no basis to discount the Gospel of Judas or Mary Magdalene.

As I said, earlier _copies_ of the story certainly do matter, because they provide a more reliable reflection of what the author originally wrote.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What about the other gospels? Judas? Mary Magdalene? Aren't those gospels, too? Do they not talk about Jesus as a real person?

Why do people completely focus only on those gospels selected by the early church because they best represented the message the church wanted to convey, including coherency?

From a historical perspective, non-church endorsed are just as legitimate sources about Jesus those endorsed by the church. Lack of agreement among them would only reflect the fact that the gospels as we know them are carefully selected.

I was under the impression all historical writings have been examined for evidence of a real historical Jesus.

I'm pretty sure the Gnostic Texts don't offer any more reliable evidence of an historical Jesus. Are there other texts you had in mind?

Wiki has a decent compilation of the evidence and rebuttals.

 

[Brainache]

OK I haven't watched the film, or read many of the links, I've just been trying to follow the conversation in this thread. I definitely do not need to believe in an historical Jesus, it is just the story that I grew up with and I always assumed it was the consensus opinion. I am happy to be corrected on that.

I am just interested in these debates, so Kapyong, please stop implying that I have any kind of agenda when I'm asking this stuff, I'm just trying to learn. OK?

So my question is: Is this Jesus Myth idea saying that the apostles were a mystic sect who sat around telling each other what the voices in their heads were saying? Kind of like the way modern day Pentacostals "speak in toungues" and then interpret whatever it was that the holy ghost was saying?

I noticed a few lines in the gospel of Thomas where the apostles were asking things like "when will we see you?", is this evidence for the idea that Jesus was a theological concept to these people, rather than a human being?

When the author of Thomas speaks of a "living Christ" is that the same as modern Christians who talk about the Holy Spirit?

If these questions have already been covered in the thread, could someone link me to the answers please?

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

OK I haven't watched the film, or read many of the links, I've just been trying to follow the conversation in this thread. I definitely do not need to believe in an historical Jesus, it is just the story that I grew up with and I always assumed it was the consensus opinion. I am happy to be corrected on that.

That Jesus is historical IS the consensus.
But so was the Demon Theory of disease.
So was the belief that smoking was good for you.

The consensus in this case consists of 99.9% of Christians working in Christian places whose work and career and friends and respect DEPENDS on them believing. It's the most biased consensus one could imagine.

I am just interested in these debates, so Kapyong, please stop implying that I have any kind of agenda when I'm asking this stuff, I'm just trying to learn. OK?

Fantastic

If you want to learn, then I suggest you start here with the 12 easy pieces of the Jesus Puzzle :
http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/puzzle1.htm

It's a clear and simple explanation of Earl's version of the Jesus Myth argument - one of the strongest contenders.

12 simple, small pages. Easy.


K.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Just to show how complicated things can get, and why one can't automatically take the first coincidence as proof of "the historical X", I humbly submit two literary examples:

1. The humorous and fictive genealogy of the Twain family by Mark Twain. The obvious problem there is that Mark Twain was a pseudonym, and there was no Twain family to trace at all.

And while that story was ultimately loosely started from a real person -- Mark Twain himself -- that actual person doesn't appear anywhere in the actual story. Any effort to find a real person _in_ the story would be futile.

2. Pinocchio and Buratino. Both talk about a living long-nosed wooden puppet, the name of the Russian one is a corruption of the Italian word for puppet or doll even, both dreamed of becoming a real boy, both run from home, both involve a character called Giuseppe (though one is called Geppetto, a nickname for Giuseppe) even if in different roles, etc. And there is not only such loosely shared material between the two, but also events that are in one but not the other, and events which are told differently or in a different order in the two.

You know, sorta like the Gospels.

Voila, we have our two independent documents to prove that such a puppet actually existed. It's based on a real historical living puppet, right?

In reality, Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy just reimagined Pinocchio from memory, after having read it as a child. They're not independent at all.

 

[bluskool]

There was a girl by the name of Dorothy who lived in Kansas, who had an Aunt Em. This we know for a fact, and it completely corresponds to characteristics attributed to Dorothy, as described in the Wizard of Oz series of books.

There have been many Royal Historians of Oz over the years, with L Frank Baum being the first. Ruth Plumly Thomson is generally considered the second, and her books are treated as cononical, although when contradictions are found we usually defer to the Baum version of events. ONeill wrote a book or two, but no one takes them too seriously. He should have stuck to illustrations.

I see nothing inherent that distinguishes the discussion of the "historical Dorothy" from the "Historical Jesus" discussions that go on here.

I'm no Baum expert so I will have to rely on you here. So Baum never wrote or discussed his inspiration for the book and there are no biographies written about him? And there were other writers at the time writing about this Dorothy, including a half dozen letters from some guy with references to her and Oz which predate the text of The Wizard of Oz?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Just to clarify one thing which might be relevant, without taking a side in the corporeal/non-corporeal part:

a. Paul claims to have come to believe in Jesus because of a vision (Galatians 1:11-12), but to have been persecuting the church prior to this (Galatians 1:13-14, Philippians 3:4-6). If Paul made the whole thing up, who was it he was persecuting?

In Philippians 3 only 6 is actually relevant, the other two just form his claim to how zealous he was previously and ceremonially blameless. E.g., his circumcision in the 8'th day establishes him as a Jew by birth not by conversion. But is 6 actually relevant? The whole thing reads as a continuation of his claim to former zeal, and the "persecuting the church" reads like a weird aside in the middle of it all. Was "persecuting the church" some kind of requirement to be blameless in Judaism? I doubt it.

The answer is that "persecuting the church" is not what he says at all, and not about the church of Jesus at all. He proclaims himself a "dioko", from "dio" = to pursue, or prosecute or persecute. Essentially what he's actually telling us there is that he was no passive follower of Judaism, but quite active in pursuing it. And a pursuer of Judaism, not of Jesus, at that.

 

[Simon39759]

Seriously? I had never read that analysis before; I'll need to go and look for myself, but it seems really interesting!

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm no Baum expert so I will have to rely on you here. So Baum never wrote or discussed his inspiration for the book and there are no biographies written about him? And there were other writers at the time writing about this Dorothy, including a half dozen letters from some guy with references to her and Oz which predate the text of The Wizard of Oz?

Outside of her birth certificate, you mean?

You appear to be missing the point. I am not asking whether there was a "historical Dorothy," as in a girl who inspired the stories of the Wizard of Oz. I'm telling you, there was one. She had some things in common with Dorothy of the books, in that she was from Kansas and had an Aunt "M." Moreover, what I haven't said is that we also know that the author of the WoO knew her (she was his wife's niece).

There have been literally dozens of authors who have written hundreds of stories about this girl in the hundred or so years since she lived. Not so many before the Baum's first book, although in 2000 years, one might not be too surprised to hear people talking about some girl named "Alice" as REALLY being about "Dorothy" (kind of like "he will be called Immanuel"). Although others will contend that the stories about Alice predate Dorothy's birth certificate, and hence are not about her.

I should also mention, that not one of the 100s of books that have been written about her tell us anything reliable about her life aside from the fact that her name was Dorothy, she lived in Kansas, and she had an Aunt Em.

 

[bluskool]

Gday bluskool,

Here is an answer to your Paul claims :




WTF ?
Paul had a VISION.
Christians DID exist. Rome DID exist. Persecutions DID exist.

The subject is whether Jesus existed in history - NOT whether Christians or persecutions did.
There is NOTHING here to argue that Jesus was historical at all. Why do YOU think there is ?

So Christians already existed and Paul didn't make the whole thing up, right? And you get the idea that Christians existed prior to Paul from?

Paul did NOT say he met Jesus' brother.
He gives the TITLE "Lord's Brother' to James, and makes it clear that he, Paul is JUST AS MUCH an apostle as James.

First, you just made up the idea that Paul gave him this title and that it didn't mean brother. That is pure speculation. Second, you made up the idea that if James was really Jesus' brother, Paul should not have said he was an apostle just like him. I guess you think he should have called him a super apostle or something.

Meanwhile, we see a Jewish name "Ahiyah" (IIRC) which means "Brother of Jahveh", we see a culture that calls itself the "children of God".

Really, that's your argument? There is a Jewish name that means brother of God, therefore Paul wasn't really saying James was Jesus' brother?

Can you explain why YOU think a title "Lord's Brother" overcomes the obvious implication that James NEVER met Jesus? (because Paul says he is just as good an apostle as James - he has "seen" Jesus just like they did.)

What are you talking about? Paul doesn't say anything like that in this passage.

Darth Vader died, he was once alive.
Do you really still not grasp this simple point?
Fictional people DO live.
Fictional people DO die.
Just NOT in history.
Yes, Paul believed Jesus died - in heaven.
No - Paul does NOT place Jesus in history - no place, no date, no people.

Jesus died in Heaven? You're just pulling this out of your butt aren't you? Anyway, fictional people die, therefore Jesus was fictional. Good argument.

No he doesn't. WHich is why you didn't quote any such.

Verse 8 says "For I say that Christ became a minister of the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, to confirm the promises to the patriarchs..."

Wrong again. Why do you think you can get away with this? Paul attributes it to THE LORD, but you falsely claimed he "says that Jesus preached". The LORD could just as easily mean revelation, or God.
Paul SAYS specifially he got his Gospel from NO MAN - a clear point you keep ignoring.

Paul refers to Jesus as lord numerous times. I don't see any reason to think he is not referring to Jesus here. I also am not ignoring the fact that Paul said he got his gospel from no man. I understand that Paul claims to have had a vision and went about spreading his version of the story before coming back to Jerusalem to consult with Peter. That doesn't mean that all of the information Paul writes about Jesus came through revelation.

Yes, he does. But why do YOU think he is referring to a historical event? He does not give a place, or time, or mention any person. Why do YOU think this is historical, please tell us?
You repeatedly make the same error - that anything about Jesus must be historical. When we see time and time again that Paul is referring to spiritual things.

Lando Calrissian betrayed Luke and Han - does that make it historical?
Edward ate with the witch - does that make him real?
No.
So why do you think this other story is real?
Because you BELIEVE, and eveything you say is subordinated to that BELIEF.

What exactly is your criteria for establishing that someone probably existed in the past? Simply saying that fictional books exist, therefore we can't know if books written in the past were about real people or not is a bad argument. It pretty much rules out the possibility of anything written being used to study history. Paul was writing letters, not fiction. He seems to have clearly thought that what he was saying was true. We have no evidence that Paul was writing what he intended to be fiction akin to Star Wars. Now, this doesn't mean that what Paul said was true. He could have made it up, there could have been a myth circulating at the time that he picked up on, etc... Of course, any number of explanations are possible. But what is most probable?

Also, I am not sure what you intend to imply when you say I "BELIEVE" stories about Jesus are real. I am not a "believer" if that is what you mean.

Yes, but why do YOU think he refers to a historical event ?
How about these references :

Gal. 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me."
Does Paul here mean HE was historically crucified? Of course NOT!

Gal. 5:24 "Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts. "
Does Paul here mean the flesh is literally "crucified" ? Of course NOT!

Rom. 6:5 "For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will also be part of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be in bondage to sin. "
Does Paul here mean his old man was "crucified" ? Of course NOT!

So Paul repeatedly uses "crucified" allegorically, why do YOU simply CLAIM that every reference to Jesus is HISTORICAL? Without any argument at all ?
All you are doing is ASSUMING Paul means everything historically, by ignoring all the allegorical comments he made, then claim "see - it's historical".
How silly.

I didn't claim that all references to Jesus are historical. I am giving references in Paul where it seems that he thinks Jesus is historical. Pointing to other references where Paul used the word crucified symbolically does not mean that this reference to Jesus being crucified is also symbolic. What makes you think that this reference is symbolic?

No they don't. They show Paul believed in Jesus as a real "life giving spirit".
But Paul does NOT mention :
* when Jesus lived
* where Jesus lived
* who Jesus lived with etc.

So that is your criteria. If an ancient source does not say where a person lived, when they lived or who they lived with, then they aren't talking about an historical person?

You just ignore the many claims when Paul says he is referring to a spiritual being "Christ in you, the hope of glory"; then just insist a few other vague spritual comments MUST be historical.

I am not ignoring the other claims. You are taking the times when Paul does use spiritual or symbolic language and saying that therefore Paul is always speaking spiritually or symbolically.

Rubbish.
There are different versions of the Hercules myth - does that make him historical ? No.
There are different versions of the Krishna myth - does that make him historical ? No.
There are different episodes written about Sherlock Holmes - does that make him historical ? No.
Why do YOU think it makes Jesus real?
Why?

Again with this argument. Characters exist in fiction, therefore Jesus was fictitious.

Your argument always boils down to "I find it hard to believe" but you don't bother with any actual argument.

You keep repeateding the SAME MISTAKE over and over :
Paul said XXX.
therefefore Jesus was real.

Without making ANY connection between XXX and Jesus being historical. All you are doing is reading your BELIEFS into Paul's words.

If you think Paul actually intended to write a Star Wars like fiction, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that. It makes more sense to me to think that he was a religious zealot who was writing things that he believed to have actually happened.

But the vast majority of your alleged "facts" are actually just claims that are FALSE.
We already know "what you think". But you don't support it with solid evidence.

Nonsense. Let's add another point.

h. Paul said in Galatians 4:4 "When the fullness of time came, God sent forth his son who was born of a woman, born under the law."
I suppose you'll just say that he meant all that symbolically without offering an argument for why this is the case or you'll make some reference to a character in fiction who was born and then claim that Jesus was therefore fictitious. A pattern is emerging here.

Ah, so you haven't actually READ the Gospels. Now it all starts to make sense.

I have and I stand by my statement. Do you have an actual argument to offer against it or was that it?

Rubbish.
The 2nd one has big problems.
Not that you'd know.

That's a good argument. "You're wrong and don't know stuff, nana na nana."

But that's NOT the subject!
Did you think we would not notice your attempt to change the goalposts?

What are you talking about? Here is how the conversation went:
Me: The gospel of Thomas is a possible source on the life of Jesus.
Crank: The gospel of Thomas never says that Jesus was alive.
Me: It claims he was alive in the first line.
Crank: You are moving the goalpost

You actually have to know what "moving the goalpost" means before you use it in a sentence.

The issue is whether any specific, identifiable person claimed to have met Jesus.

You said G.Thomas did.

I pointed out that G.Thomas did NO SUCH THING at all - his claims are :
* Jesus spoke
* Thomas heard
Without the author identifying himself - which is what YOU claimed at first, but now can't admit your mistake.

I never claimed that Thomas wrote the gospel of Thomas or that the author claimed to have met Jesus. Can you find a quote where I made either of those claims? I only said the GT is a possible source and that it claims that Jesus was alive.

So now, you CHANGE the subject to whether this book refers to a "living Jesus" - a completely different subject.

You are seriously confused.

Yes, this anonymous book makes a CLAIM that Jesus was "living" - so what?
So was Hercules and Harry Potter and Gollum.
In the stories.
Not in history.

Oh good, I was hoping you would use this argument again.

Once again - you keep repeating the same error over and over :
Jesus is referred to as X
therefore I believe Jesus was historical.
Which is complete nonsense.

Once again, we can never know anything about ancient history using your criteria.

No, because it coantains nothing historical :
* no dates
* no places
* no people

That's how you know if a source is historical? So, if we find a letter from Thomas Jefferson and it isn't dated and doesn't talk about specific places, we should just throw in the trash because historians shouldn't care about stuff like that.

99.9% of whom are Christian believers working in Christian establishments whose job and reputation and friends all DEPEND on them keepng that belief.

This is the MOST BIASED sample you could find on the whole planet.

First of all, you just pulled that out of your butt. I am sure most, but not all Biblical scholars are Christians, but I the statistic for historians of the subject is all that high. I really don't know though, so I would rather not speculate or make up statistics. You, on the other hand, don't seem to mind.

How many atheists believe in Jesus, bluskool?

Believe that he existed? I would be one and the only statistics I can find say that about 86% of atheists in America and 60% of atheists in the UK agree with me.

But that's exactly what it is - just like saying :
"I'm not a racist but..."

It wasn't an argument for the existence of Jesus. That would have been an argument from authority. It was an argument against the idea that historians have looked at the evidence and concluded that Jesus didn't exist, which makes it not an argument from authority.

 

[bluskool]

Rubbish.
You're just making it up as you go.


K.

Hogwash.
I have no argument, but you're wrong.