Was there a historical Jesus at all?

[bluskool]

Yes. I wasn't really going to go into that much detail about it, because, well, let's face it, I'm not gonna convince you any time soon, but since you ask...

It's still basically linguistic conjecture and plain old supposition.

E.g., they pretty much just postulate that Mark must be earlier because it's shorter and uses a more offensive language, but both are basically non-sequiturs. The Gospel Of Peter for example was later than all others and is the most offensive of the lot.

That's not what the link I posted said. Streeter gives five reasons for Markan priority.

1. Matthew reproduces 90% of the subject matter of Mark in language very largely identical with that of Mark; Luke does the same for rather more than half of Mark.

2. In any average section, which occurs in the three Gospels, the majority of the actual words used by Mark are reproduced by Matthew and Luke, either alternately or both together.

3. The relative order of incidents and sections in Mark is in general supported by both Matthew and Luke; where either of them deserts Mark, the other is usually found supporting him.

This conjunction and alternation of Matthew and Luke in their agreement with Mark as regards
(a) content,
(b) wording,
(c) order,
is only explicable if they are incorporating a source identical, or all but identical, with Mark.

4. The primitive character of Mark is further shown by
(a) the use of phrases likely to cause offence, which are omitted or toned down in the other Gospels,
(b) roughness of style and grammar, and the preservation of Aramaic words.

5. The way in which Marcan and non-Marcan material is distributed in Matthew and Luke respectively looks as if each had before him the Marcan material in a single document, and was faced with the problem of combining this with material from other sources.

E.g., they pretty much just postulate that Luke was conflating some events with some other source, but I see no real evidence that he wasn't more like confabulating on his own. Basically that's one source that's just handwaved in.

Well, I wouldn't say he "just" postulates this. He does make an argument for why he thinks this.

Furthermore, even if I were to accept the existence of Q, the problems still aren't over. E.g., what was the element that linked Q to Mark? How did they know it's about the same guy?

Was it the name Jesus? Out of the thousands of Jesuses running around at any given time, how do you know if it's independent confirmation of the same Jesus, and not the wise sayings of a completely different one?

Or maybe it was by the title of Christos? Well, that title may be unique enough to take as proof that someone is talking about Jesus nowadays, but back then it was anything but. "Christos" simply meant "annointed", and was used in several religion for their top-level initiates, _centuries_ before the alleged Jesus. Even Pharaohs were annointed, and so were a lot of people in Mesopotamia, etc.

To see how common and widespread the "annointment" was, even one of Odin's titles, "Grim", is derived from the same proto-Indo-European root meaning "to rub". It's basically a variant of "annointed".

So did they copy the sayings and wise parables of a priest of a completely different religion actually?

Or was it maybe about a "Chrestos"? The confusion between "Chrestos" and "Christos" was even widespread among Christians for centuries to come, and some even considered it the proper form. E.g., IIRC Lactantius argued that they should call themselves Chrestians and only by confusion some call themselves Christians.

But Chrestos was an even more common title. It could mean a neophyte who wasn't annointed yet (at which point he would become a "Christos".) It could mean the person who interpreted the cryptic sayings of an oracle, or merely was in the service of an oracle. It could mean a seeker of the truth in the more general sense. At it's used even in the NT in a couple of places to mean just "good" (person.)

So if someone was confused enough, we could have Q be just the sayings of a good man (in much of the same way as Confucius just means "the master", and his analects are just what the nameless master said), or an initiate, or a seeker of the truth, or whatever.

Without actually seeing what's in that Q document, it's just an unsupported leap of faith to postulate that it's about the same Jesus and independent proof of a historical Jesus. We don't actually know what was the connection they saw between Q and Mark. And again it seems to me like some people are just too eager to pull postulates out of the hat there.

Those are pretty good points.

 

[bluskool]

Gday,



It never fails -
in any post about the historicity of Jesus, some believer will bring up evolution.

Let's see -
over the last century or more, there have been thousands of scientists in dozens of countries who have done millions of tests, experiments and observations which support evolution.

Millions of observations of evolution.

But, there are ZERO tests or observations or experiments that have DISAGREED with evolution - NONE.

NOT. ONE.

Evolution :
Millions of tests that agree.
Zero that disagree.


Jesus:
* no contemporary evidence
* no archeological evidence
* no evidence of ANYONE who EVER met Jesus

* plenty of evidence AGAINST Jesus being historical.


But to a believer - Jesus is more real than evolution.


K.

What is your deal with thinking I am a believer? I have already told you that I am an atheist and have no vested interest in this. The comparison with evolution was to show how silly your argument was, not to cast doubt on evolution. Yeesh!

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yes, I have read that text, that was just a couple of examples of what I consider rather debatable assumptions. I wasn't going to write a whole thesis about it. Let's just say why I can't say he's flat out wrong (I don't have more evidence either way than he does either) I'm not quite convinced to take it as gospel either. It's a decent conjecture, actually, but still not much more than conjecture, that's all I'm saying.

 

[bluskool]

Yes, I have read that text, that was just a couple of examples of what I consider rather debatable assumptions. I wasn't going to write a whole thesis about it. Let's just say why I can't say he's flat out wrong (I don't have more evidence either way than he does either) I'm not quite convinced to take it as gospel either. It's a decent conjecture, actually, but still not much more than conjecture, that's all I'm saying.

On that point I will totally agree with you. We are talking about history so more subjectivity is going to play a role than in other scholarly fields. I think the Jesus myth is quite possibly true, but am not sold on it yet. It certainly would make it easier to argue with believers. No reason to get into the nuances of whether Jesus did this or that if we could just say he never existed.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

What is your deal with thinking I am a believer? I have already told you that I am an atheist and have no vested interest in this.

Fair enough.
I'm NOT an atheist.

The comparison with evolution was to show how silly your argument was, not to cast doubt on evolution. Yeesh!

But I showed your comparison was faulty -

There is a VAST difference between evolution with millions of actual supporting observations and NO disproofs;
vs
a majority of believers who BELIEVE, (and many reasons NOT to.)

It's chalk and cheese.
Your comparision fails.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

But your conspiracy theory suggests that I was lied to and conned.

I'd like to remind people that this 'conspiracy theory' of Carotta's is generally NOT widely believed. Not even by Jesus mythers. I don't think Hans would call it 'his conpiracy theory'.

Generally, the Jesus Myth argument does NOT rest on a conspiracy (an agreement to commit a crime or evil act.)

(Of course, these days, 'conspiracy theory' is often used to mean 'crazy stuff I don't believe'.)

I have also found on the internet Roman historians mentioned who mention Jesus.

None contemporary.
It's just some later Romans who record Christian BELIEFS about Jesus in the 2nd century. Not actual records of Jesus.

So what? Everyone agrees there were Christian in the 2nd century who believed in Jesus.

All it means is that we should be praising Peter and Paul, who did exist. We know where they are burried.

Nonsense.
The alleged 'tomb of Peter' turned out to be a pile of old rubbish in a gap in some ancient masonry which included bones of several people, NO head, and some animals bones such as pig bones.

Paul's alleged tomb is no better - it's actually just an empty sarcophagus from almost four centuries after Paul.


K.

 

[Brainache]

Gday,



Fair enough.
I'm NOT an atheist.
...
K.

I hope you don't think I'm being rude, but I'm curious about what your religious beliefs are. Is this Jesus Myth (which I find fairly convincing BTW) the basis of your personal theology?

To me, the question of Jesus' existence as a flesh and blood human v a spirtual being is moot, because you will not convince the majority of Christians.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I hope you don't think I'm being rude, but I'm curious about what your religious beliefs are. Is this Jesus Myth (which I find fairly convincing BTW) the basis of your personal theology?

I wouldn't say that, no.

I was reading Homer and the OT when I was 5 or so (in kids versions) and they were obviously the same category of story.

Oddly, I recall in this period of lapping up those lovely books with colour engravings by Drurer (maybe) of great biblical scenes, that there seemed to be two differen threads to these stories :

1. One set of people and stories which was about tabernacles and wandering and the Ark.

2. Another set was about other people and Jerusalem and a Temple.

They didn't seem to connect to my childish mind.

Then much later, after various bizarre spiritual experiences, I came to look hard at the Jesus problem - coming at it from a magical and/or mythical approach.

It's seems pretty clear that Paul had various spiritual experiences, that influenced him greatly, he wrote about it - and many listened to him - just like seekers today read all those spiritual and esoteric books to find the truth.

Have a look at 1 John - it's obvious the guy has just been out of body and initiated into the 'Christ' and he can't wait to tell everybody. Then people read that book and get goose-bumps and say "wow, that guy saw the god worlds".

Have a look at Clement - he talks about Christian initiation :
"rise oh sleepr and the Christ will shine on you".
What on earth is that?
Nothing to do with anything in the Gospels - it's a person being initiated into an out of body experience called 'Christ' in some way.

Have a look at The Golden Ass "I saw the sun shine at mid-night and worshipped the Gods face to face".

It's the same stuff - they were all having out of body spiritual experiencxs, maybe drug induced - who knows.

That's how it started.

To me, the question of Jesus' existence as a flesh and blood human v a spirtual being is moot, because you will not convince the majority of Christians.

Yup.

But I would be happy to say Christ is "real".
He is a real spiritual being.
No idea what that really means.

I would disagree with almost every specific Christian belief.
But I would still never call myself an atheist because I have travelled myself in at least 3 of my bodies and met some of the others face to face, and seen physical magic done for me.


K.

 

[Brainache]

OK. Thanks.

Good luck with that.

 

[Darat]

Series of off-topic and Rule 12 breaches dumped to AAH - lets get back to the topic of the thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[154]

It is impossible to talk with people when my posts are routinely removed.

Weren't they just vicious and terrible?

The things that have been said against me that have been allowed to remain without any complaint or censorship

and yet the simplest things I say must go

because they are far too troubling for the egos here.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Umm, 154, sad to rain on your martyr delusion parade, but I just had posts removed from my own thread that were just about my medical history. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. FSM knows the mods are doing the best they can, and it _was_ off-topic. But, just saying, I'm affraid there's no conspiracy to remove just your own posts.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Perhaps it's time for an overview :

1. There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus
Tacitus, Pliny - report 2nd C. Christian beliefs
Suetonius - not about Jesus, 2nd cenyury report
Talmud - centuries later, bizarre stories

2. No Christian ever claimed to have met Jesus
(except the forged 2nd C. 2 Peter)
No Christian ever claimed to have met someone who met Jesus.

3. Jesus' story is clearly crafted from the Tanakh
And also shows pagan elements here and there.

4. The earliest Christian beliefs were a confusing mass of different religious ideas about Jesus.

5. When the Gospels became known, they were widely attacked as "fiction", "invented", "lies" etc.

6. The NT text was frequently changed for religious purposes, showing it's not history.

7. Various authors argue Jesus was not historical :
Carotta and his Caesar theory
The Piso family conspiracy (Atwill?)
AcharyaS' solar myth theory
George Wells
Robert Price
Earl Doherty's Jesus Myth
and many earlier ones too....
But generally, they are NOT "conspiracy theories" (only 2 crazy ones are that.)



The best Jesus Myth theory is Earl's in my view :
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm


K.

 

[Moss]

I'm curious about one thing, could a tradition similar to the one of the Mandaeans^WP (or maybe that tradition) have contributed significantly to the formation of the stories about Jesus?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Have a look at Clement - he talks about Christian initiation :
"rise oh sleepr and the Christ will shine on you".
What on earth is that?
Nothing to do with anything in the Gospels - it's a person being initiated into an out of body experience called 'Christ' in some way.

That is probably easier understood in the context of Clement's being a former Platonist.

Plato saw philosophy as a way to leave the physical body and live in the spirit, in the spiritual body. His followers took that even more literally than Plato likely meant it. By the time of Clement we're at middle platonism stage: it had not yet gone as full-tilt woowoo as later neoplatonism, but it wasn't too far either. It had already taken a pronounced turn towards dogmatism and mystery initiation, and had ditched any remains of scepticism or materialism. It was basically another mystery cult, in which meditation and mysical knowledge would lift one above the material world, and quite literally at that.

For those the "Christos" was, basically, the divine spirit of truth or "the Way", while "Chrestos" was that seeker of truth I mentioned before.

So basically all he's saying there is, well, the middle platonism idea described quite literally. Leaving your body behind and ascending in spirit to a higher plane, one more in contact with that fundamental principle.

Paul himself hinted at that in Galatians 4:19 "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you". I don't think he meant Jesus Christ even as the non-corporeal person of his visions there, but Christos as that universal principle.

(It's probably no coincidence that gnostics could trace their teachings to Paul too with a straight face.)

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

What's in a name

For that matter, it just occurs to me that maybe all this time we've been too obsessed with Jesus as a _name_. But was it really a person's name, or title, or allegory?

The name Yeshua was a contraction for Yehoshua, meaning, "God saves" or "God is salvation" or I guess you could turn it around into "Saved By God".

It seems to me like "Iesous Christos" is basically a two language melange meaning "saved by God and annointed".

It seems to me like it's the kind of name you can reach the other way around, starting from basically "messiah" and letting a hallucinating mind flesh out someone fitting that. "God saves" is the kind of name that didn't have to come from anywhere but Paul's malfunctioning brain, as a fit for the entity it was creating.

 

[pgwenthold]

For that matter, it just occurs to me that maybe all this time we've been too obsessed with Jesus as a _name_. But was it really a person's name, or title, or allegory?

Kind of like Barabbas?

I think Barabbas is a far more compelling character in the gospels. He is called an "insurrectionist," but his name alone tells us much more. "Son of God"? Sounds more like a case of competing messiahs, to me. Jesus got the short end of the stick, as it were.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Pretty much like Barabbas, yes. Ironically that one (too) is generally thought to have been completely made up.