historical jesus

[varwoche]

It seems likely that a Jesus existed.

But it also seems that this is taken for granted as fact, contrary to (lack of) historical records.

I hear a lot of debate these days about who killed Jesus, but not much debate as to existence of Jesus.

I wonder if readers of this board take for granted that Jesus existed, and if so, based on what foundation other than the (historically circumspect) gospels?

varwoche

[iain]

Hi varwoche,

This subject does come up from time to time, without much resolution (which I guess isn't too surprising as no one on this forum has got a time machine working yet ;)).

A very good resource for the arguments against the existence of an historical Jesus is The Jesus Puzzle (http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/home.htm) by Earl Doherty.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by iain
A very good resource for the arguments against the existence of an historical Jesus is The Jesus Puzzle (http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/home.htm) by Earl Doherty.
Greetings. One thing that's frustrating as I research this topic is trying to filter out the honest brokers.

varwoche

[Yahweh]

There are about 95 threads available with the word "Jesus" in the title.

Some of the one worth reading are:
Did Jesus Really Die on the Cross? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33070)

Historical Jesus (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31455)

Atheists - Skeptics and Jesus (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19314)

Historical Proof That Jesus Existed (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18004)

[ReasonableDoubt]

I would recomment starting here (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html).

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by varwoche
It seems likely that a Jesus existed.

But it also seems that this is taken for granted as fact, contrary to (lack of) historical records.

I hear a lot of debate these days about who killed Jesus, but not much debate as to existence of Jesus.

I wonder if readers of this board take for granted that Jesus existed, and if so, based on what foundation other than the (historically circumspect) gospels?

varwoche

So called 'historical Jesus' is a sock puppet for theological liberals.

The notion is that a late 20th century style liberal existed 2000 years ago. That is their Jesus.

As an atheist, I say bah!

[Bleever]

I know spirit communication doesn't go over too big here but this may be interesting to see if it could be verified against any actual historical evidence for a Jesus.

This is from a series of four books - 1700 pages - primarily dictated by visible full-form spirit materializations of which Thomas Paine and electricity pioneer Michael Faraday were among the group leaders.

Thomas Paine on a theological god, hell and Jesus (http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~gsa00121/books/paine.htm)

Oration No. 8 One Josie, a Medium, was Manufactured into the Theological Jesus

Mr. Paine, you say that Jesus as taught today is a theological myth. How, then, shall we regard the pictures we receive and the alleged appearances we have of him?

Paine: That is all right. There was a man whose true name was Josie, who had medium powers not near so good as our medium here; but our medium is no more Jesus—that is, 'a savior'—than any other man or boy. He is no God; he is only Will Aber. No more God for having the gift of mediumship than some other person is God on account of his gift of music.

There is no proof, either on earth or in spirit life, that the Bible personality called Jesus Christ, as preached today, ever existed.

Question: Was that man Josie baptized in the river Jordan?

Paine: I don't know whether he was baptized in the river Jordan or in the St. Lawrence, but he was baptized; and, at the time, out of ridicule, was called Jesus; though his real name was Josie. He had the gifts of a common medium only, and never the alleged properties of a savior.

If you were passing along and were to meet a crowd of roughs who would plunge you into a mud-hole and mockingly call you Ingersoll, and say, 'How are you, Bob?' it would not make you the great Ingersoll; you would still be Mr. Nixon.

Well, that is just the way that Josie got to be a savior and finally the 'Lord God of the universe.' I do not ask you to believe this. Do as you like about that. I asked for proof of the theological allegations, and was satisfied with nothing else. No such proof was ever given me on earth, and since coming here I have found enough to convince me of what I have told you of the existence of one Josie.


Even in death ole Tom is still continuing his line of thought from his "Age of Reason" and blasting away at religion. As a secular survivalist I like this quote from : Psychic writings of Thomas Paine (http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~gsa00121/books/painewritings.htm)

The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing and it admits of no conclusion.

Not anything can be studied as a science, without your being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and, as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.

[ceo_esq]

Some of the better threads on the historicity of Jesus (remember "The Titulus from Jesus' Cross?") have been pruned, unfortunately.

I would recommend John P. Meier's multivolume A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. In my opinion, it is the best-researched, best-written and best-argued of the currently available crop of skeptical historical investigations. Indeed, it's widely viewed as the gold standard in late-20th-century historical Jesus scholarship.

[Cleopatra]

Some of the better threads on the historicity of Jesus (remember "The Titulus from Jesus' Cross?") have been pruned, unfortunately.


:rolleyes:

Let me check Santa Claus again...

[sackett]

Jesus Historical Christ! At last we know!

Religions have to start with somebody, so the existence of a Jesus is pretty likely. Several Jesuses have been posited, and certainly the gospels seem at times to describe rather different individuals. But there's nothing implausible in the idea of a charismatic prophesy-monger gathering a following that grew into a permanent cult; Mohammad and Joseph Smith are examples. (Yes, I know, some have questioned the existence of Mohammad, but what's the point? Somebody dreamed that stuff up.)

For long centuries now, people have been creating their own Jesuses. "Your personal saviour, custom-made while U wait!" Well, why not? Religion is always a matter of making things up and then believing them.

My Jesus is the one who got the woman taken in adultery off the hook. That's a circumstantial, uncomfortably believeable Near Eastern story; it could happen today.

[Bottle or the Gun]

If there was a Jesus, then he was probably more an idealized symbol than an actual person. Like King Arthur, who if he existed would have actually been a one of several tribal leaders from many centuries prior to today's medievil popular concept, who's stories were orally handed down, changed and homogenized until more contemporary times.

Other examples could be older stories and events that were co-opted for the carpenter-cult (Christmas replaced a pagan holiday, Noah's Ark was a fish from older tales, the name of the devil was derived from a regional tribe people spent centuries fighting, etc.)

I even read once that Jesus was called the 'Black Priest' because the early writers of the biblical records didn't really agree with what he was doing and was upsetting the status-quo, something that is ignored in later writings as the political winds changed. If there was a Jesus, he was probably a real rabble-rousing Rabbi!

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by sackett
Jesus Historical Christ! At last we know!

Religions have to start with somebody, so the existence of a Jesus is pretty likelyWell Crappy Krishna Crumpets! Thanks for the mother of all non sequiturs! Religions have to start with somebody, so the existence of a Vishnu is pretty likely.

Originally posted by sackett
My Jesus is the one who got the woman taken in adultery off the hook. That's a circumstantial, uncomfortably believeable Near Eastern story; it could happen today. That is rather unfortunate ...Some well-loved stories also disappeared in the text so carefully an long preserved og Mount Sinai. The eighth chapter of St John's Gospel, in the received text, contains the story of a woman who had been caught committing adultery. The scribes and the Pharisees wish to stone her to death, following, as they say, the lay of Moses. Jesus says, 'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her'. One by one the woman's accusers slip away, until she and Jesus are alone together. Then he asks her, 'Where are your accusers? Has no-one condemned you?' She answers, 'No-one my Lord'. Jesus responds, 'Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more.'

We now know that some ancient manuscripts transfer this story elsewhere in the New Testament, to the Gospel of Luke. In some manuscripts the scribes have indicated that they doubt its authenticity. It nowhere appears in either Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. [pg. 130]

- see Secrets of Mount Sinai: The story of finding the world's oldest bible - Codex Sinaitus; by James BentleyYour Jesus appers to be somewhat of a late-comer.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by sackett
Religions have to start with somebody, so the existence of a Jesus is pretty likely.

I don't buy this line of reasoning. If religion is - as Joseph Campbell said - misunderstood myth, then we don't need an historical Jesus for Xianity to florish - just ignorance.

It is as if the followers of Mithra suddenly were convinced Mithra actually existed. And with the encouragement of Mithric church fathers - were able to erase writings that claimed otherwise.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Isn't there a song with those lyrics: "Your...Own...Historical...Jesus"

[Riddick]

Collateral proof of Jesus (http://home.christianity.com/local/jesus/jesus/evidence.htm)

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Riddick
Collateral proof of Jesus (http://home.christianity.com/local/jesus/jesus/evidence.htm) This laundry list gets regurgitated periodically and to the point where it gets rather tiresome. Why don't you just pick the "proof" that you find most probative and defend it? I assume that you would not have posted something in which you could find nothing worthy of defending.

[Zero]

I really don't think it matters much either way. We suspect that there was a historical King Arthur as well, but that doesn't for a moment prove the existance of magical swords. In the same way, showing a historical Josh doesn't do a thing for the Christian mythology, does it?

[Riddick]

Collateral proof of Jesus (http://home.christianity.com/local/jesus/jesus/evidence.htm)

edit: double-post, my connection sucks

[Zero]

Originally posted by Riddick
Collateral proof of Jesus (http://home.christianity.com/local/jesus/jesus/evidence.htm)

edit: double-post, my connection sucks I'm just trying to figure out how I managed to sneak a post in between those two...

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Riddick
Collateral proof of Jesus (http://home.christianity.com/local/jesus/jesus/evidence.htm)
Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says

There isn't a smiley that covers this. Even the laughing dog isn't laughing hard enough.

[sackett]

Originally posted by Zero
. . . showing a historical Josh doesn't do a thing for the Christian mythology, does it?

Thank you, Zero, for stating what I thought must surely already be a given.

I'm sticking to my guns on religions always having their origin with some particular individual. How else would they arise?

The cult of Vishnu? Started with the fever-dreams of some long-ago proto-Hindu who convinced somebody else that his delusion was reality; happens all the time.

I suspect that starting a cult is fairly easy, but setting it up as a going concern is more difficult, and is not likely to be solely -- if at all -- the work of the original prophet. Christianism supposedly had St. Peter; Mormonism unquestionably had Brigham Young (a no-nonsense businessman and politician who only had one "vision" in his life: the necessity to tithe was revealed unto him, and guess who was the anointed banker).

Hell's fire, if a creep like Jim Jones could found a cult, why couldn't Jesus H.?

[Zero]

Originally posted by sackett


Thank you, Zero, for stating what I thought must surely already be a given.

I'm sticking to my guns on religions always having their origin with some particular individual. How else would they arise?

The cult of Vishnu? Started with the fever-dreams of some long-ago proto-Hindu who convinced somebody else that his delusion was reality; happens all the time.

I suspect that starting a cult is fairly easy, but setting it up as a going concern is more difficult, and is not likely to be solely -- if at all -- the work of the original prophet. Christianism supposedly had St. Peter; Mormonism unquestionably had Brigham Young (a no-nonsense businessman and politician who only had one "vision" in his life: the necessity to tithe was revealed unto him, and guess who was the anointed banker).

Hell's fire, if a creep like Jim Jones could found a cult, why couldn't Jesus H.? Well, Christianity was really founded by Paul, AFAIK, because his letters pretty much set the ground rules for the scam.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by sackett
I'm sticking to my guns on religions always having their origin with some particular individual. How else would they arise? For a start, you could try to be at least minimally honest.

You did not say: 'Christianity had its origin with some particular individual.' Such a statement is so inane as to be worthless.

What you did say was: Religions have to start with somebody, so the existence of a Jesus is pretty likelyPresumably you're smart enough to understand the difference bewteen these two arguments - the first insipid and the second stupid.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Sackett
Religions have to start with somebody, so the existence of a Jesus is pretty likely

Idiots had to start somewhere, so the existence of you is pretty likely.

[sackett]

My but people's toes are easy to step on! Some of us are wearing Jesus boots* even in March.

I don't give a pinch of sour owl-popp if somebody actually named Yeshua ever lived or not, but since gods only exist inside people's heads (I mean that literally), a sect -must- have its origins with some one person.

Or how do religions originate? Any theories?

* Deplorable old hippie slang for sandals.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Idiots had to start somewhere, so the existence of you is pretty likely. Grow up. :rolleyes:

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by sackett

I'm sticking to my guns on religions always having their origin with some particular individual. How else would they arise?


I don't know anyone who has doubted the existence of Paul, so, I suppose this statement is valid. As has been noted, if you want to credit someone with the "origin" of christianity, he's the guy.

Not sure what this has to do with the historicity or whatever of Jesus, though.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by sackett
I don't give a pinch of sour owl-popp if somebody actually named Yeshua ever lived or not, ... Then why do you make claims on the subject?

Originally posted by sackett
..., a sect -must- have its origins with some one person.How does this make the existence of a Jesus pretty likely? Have you ever read anything by those who reject an historical Jesus? Have you read Doherty, for example?