Historical Jesus?

[oddbird1963]

For me, the only reasonable argument for a historical Jesus (non-miraculous, not-God-son, just human teacher/cult-leader) is that pretty much every religious cult in the world starts with one lead-figure. I'm not sure Paul is the one, since he is referring back to an existing cult. That cult, which Paul built upon (and most likely modified), must have had someone in the lead. I don't know about any religious movement of any kind which didn't have a charismatic leader to kick it off. After that, we can all argue how much of the stories are true about this leader, even argue if his name was Jesus or not, but I have a hard time accepting a collective "mind" creating a cult on its own.

 

 

I think this is a reasonable speculation, Han. My intuition leads me to think a collective mind probably couldn't get the thing started. But when it all boils down to it, the people and the events of those days are lost to us.

 

But I wonder. Since 'Yeshua' is the name of "Joshua" which means savior, could that not also be a mythologized name. Perhaps the real cult leader was "Irving!"

[NotBlinded]

Also I'd like to point out. If there was a preacher from Galilee who lived around that time who didn't perform all those miracles, who wasn't noticed by all, who wasn't plotted against by the elite, how could that person be considered to be Jesus?

It's called guru worship. Then the miracles were seen...if you know what I mean.

I get you. My point was more along the lines of if this mythological version of Jesus, were based upon an actual real life Jesus who barely resembled the myth, that mythological version of Jesus is still a myth who never existed.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, of course.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

History is Science. It's a Social Science. The problem is that many who claim to be Historians do not see it as such and claim it is Philosophy or Art to excuse themselves from the standards of proof and evidence a Scientific Discipline requires. They are doing History a disservice and should have their credentials revoked for it.

 

 

 

They should have their 'credentials revoked' Okay. Don't you agree, that it's not their fault that Jesus affected billions of people, and the Greek gods did not? Why would you consider them less of a historian? Is your statement more because of personal events, revolving around Jesus and Christianity; or are you just a crusader of historical accuracy?

[Ouroboros]

I think this is a reasonable speculation, Han. My intuition leads me to think a collective mind probably couldn't get the thing started. But when it all boils down to it, the people and the events of those days are lost to us.

Agree.

 

But I wonder. Since 'Yeshua' is the name of "Joshua" which means savior, could that not also be a mythologized name. Perhaps the real cult leader was "Irving!"

That has been my view for a while. But I think his name was Bob.

 

Someone did mention once, in some interview or whatever (one of those agnostic/atheist scholars), that "Jesus" could have been a title, just like CEO, President, or Führer. And wasn't Caesar a title too?

[RationalOkie]

They should have their 'credentials revoked' Okay. Don't you agree, that it's not their fault that Jesus affected billions of people, and the Greek gods did not? Why would you consider them less of a historian? Is your statement more because of personal events, revolving around Jesus and Christianity; or are you just a crusader of historical accuracy?

 

Easy YoYo you're starting to sound like LNC with the 5 questions for every statement

[Neon Genesis]

For me, the only reasonable argument for a historical Jesus (non-miraculous, not-God-son, just human teacher/cult-leader) is that pretty much every religious cult in the world starts with one lead-figure. I'm not sure Paul is the one, since he is referring back to an existing cult. That cult, which Paul built upon (and most likely modified), must have had someone in the lead. I don't know about any religious movement of any kind which didn't have a charismatic leader to kick it off. After that, we can all argue how much of the stories are true about this leader, even argue if his name was Jesus or not, but I have a hard time accepting a collective "mind" creating a cult on its own.

I used to be in the Jesus was mythological camp for awhile but I switched back over to the Jesus was probably a historical figure camp, but there's one thing I've always wondered about this. Who was the single cult leader of Greek mythology? And isn't it generally agreed upon that John Frum or whatever his name was who established the cargo cults never existed?

[Ouroboros]

I used to be in the Jesus was mythological camp for awhile but I switched back over to the Jesus was probably a historical figure camp, but there's one thing I've always wondered about this. Who was the single cult leader of Greek mythology?

True. Many of the older religions most likely grew up through slow traditions. But that takes a longer time. A new religious cult doesn't start within 100 years just through generations of traditions and folklore, it requires a spark. So I guess we have to separate cults as more like something more instantaneous compared to the "slow-growing" kind? I think the Greek mythology grew out of older pagan traditions, and who knows, perhaps some of the old pagan beliefs have some common source.

 

And isn't it generally agreed upon that John Frum or whatever his name was who established the cargo cults never existed?

I"m not sure if that has been established. I think the theory is that a person who was named John came there and presented himself as "Hi, I'm John from America." So a person were definitely involved. Something or someone did trigger it off. But he's dead now, so there's no John who can come forward and proclaim, "Hey, that's me!" I think it's likely that "John" existed. How else did they start the "John Frum" cult with American flags and U.S.A. painted on their chests? It's way too much coincident to think that it occurred as a random event without something trigger it or giving them the root of ideas to build this cult upon.

 

So perhaps we should say, generally speaking there tend to be some kind of leader from where the first seeds of ideas come from.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

The greek gods were largely adapted from the Egyptian Gods and they added from the multitude of gods/goddesses worshipped throughout their empire. The ideas of the afterlife were modified and morality started to be defined through logical terms rather than god-given laws.

 

I had read that the original "Jesus" was a man named Yesu Nazrim who lived about 100BCE. He was a gnostic hermit type who stirred up trouble for the tradtional Jewish rulers and was eventually stoned (I believe). But he was supposed to have started some little followings that stuck around for a while and when John the Baptist came around (possibly with some close relative teacher person) they were ready for that sort of thing. Most if not all the miracles listed in the Bible were mythologies of various other gods in the area. It is not really surprising that it spread quickly, because when the temple was destroyed the Jews had little way to continue their religion - which depended on their records and laws and temple. But with Christianity, they could still practice, and they could live in peace with the gentiles around them. And that is when the gospels started to be written.

 

If you think about it, it is kind of like santa - there was a real man (a few perhaps) who were pretty cool. Then we decided to smash all the stories together and call him Santa Clause and tell our kids to believe in him. Then they get older and realize that that man does not exist, though there was once someone like him, and parents try to continue the idea in their memory. Jesus was a guy or two and their stories were told and finally recorded, giving all the credit to the one guy because it was the idea behind the stories that made a difference to the writers. Not empirical truth, just a nice idea inspired by presumably nice guys. Now long since changed and adapted and taken more literally than was ever intended. Fascinating really.

[Shyone]

And isn't it generally agreed upon that John Frum or whatever his name was who established the cargo cults never existed?

I still think that John Frum is some kind of English->Native->English mistranslation.

 

"Hi! I'm John, from Australia!"

 

"Uoogh, he John From."

 

And From -> Frum.

 

But there never was a "John Frum." Kind of like there was never a "Jesus Christ." It's an English translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic Hebrew name. Maybe.

[Shyone]

 

So perhaps we should say, generally speaking there tend to be some kind of leader from where the first seeds of ideas come from.

Damn, you and I had very similar thoughts. Great minds think alike, I suppose.

[oddbird1963]

 

 

History is Science. It's a Social Science. The problem is that many who claim to be Historians do not see it as such and claim it is Philosophy or Art to excuse themselves from the standards of proof and evidence a Scientific Discipline requires. They are doing History a disservice and should have their credentials revoked for it.

 

 

 

They should have their 'credentials revoked' Okay. Don't you agree, that it's not their fault that Jesus affected billions of people, and the Greek gods did not? Why would you consider them less of a historian? Is your statement more because of personal events, revolving around Jesus and Christianity; or are you just a crusader of historical accuracy?

 

 

Abiyoyo,

 

The greek gods were known all over the known world thanks to the influence of Alexander the Great. People today still learn greek mythology and thanks to the works of Joseph Campbell still study the Greek myths to glean valuable insight into the human condition.

 

It's like a movie going from the #1 spot for 10 weeks straight down to 6th, then 7th , then 8th. The movie may not currently be number run, but it had a wide appeal for a long time.

 

It's not like Christianity has a role in history that somehow affirms its divine status. Christianity was dragged along as the Romans and then the parade of dark age, medieval and modern western empires forced their way over the globe. They forced Christianity on people as they forced their empire on the world.

 

To say "Jesus affected billions" is a fantasy.

[dagnarus]

For me, the only reasonable argument for a historical Jesus (non-miraculous, not-God-son, just human teacher/cult-leader) is that pretty much every religious cult in the world starts with one lead-figure. I'm not sure Paul is the one, since he is referring back to an existing cult. That cult, which Paul built upon (and most likely modified), must have had someone in the lead. I don't know about any religious movement of any kind which didn't have a charismatic leader to kick it off. After that, we can all argue how much of the stories are true about this leader, even argue if his name was Jesus or not, but I have a hard time accepting a collective "mind" creating a cult on its own.

 

I don't see why the charismatic leader has to be Jesus. It could have just been a guy who was said he was Jesus's front man, much like how the charismatic leader of the Glycon cult started up in the 2nd century wasn't Glycon, it was his "prophet" Alexander of Abonutichus.

[Ouroboros]

I don't see why the charismatic leader has to be Jesus. It could have just been a guy who was said he was Jesus's front man, much like how the charismatic leader of the Glycon cult started up in the 2nd century wasn't Glycon, it was his "prophet" Alexander of Abonutichus.

True. But lets say Paul was that front man, but he was doing it for an existing cult; a cult which started before he started to front it. So someone else must have done it before him. That person was perhaps Peter and the other disciples. And yeah, it is a possibility. Perhaps they came up with the story.

 

But I think that scenario is quite rare. I think generally (most of the time--not all the time) cults start with a charismatic leader. Which leads me to I think it's more likely (more probable) this was the case here too. Not saying that there possibly could have been not, but if we talk about probability, considering that perhaps 99% of the cases are of a certain kind, this event would be of the same kind. It's a fair assumption, even though of course it is not 100% sure.

 

My point is that this argument is so far the closest you can get to a fair argument for a historical Jesus. Most other arguments are based on assumptions about the honesty and truth expressed by the followers, while this argument is based on statistics and observations of history in general.

 

But keep in mind, I'm not saying that this proves it to be true, only that it is likely. And it doesn't prove that Jesus was named Jesus, or that he was supernatural, or even if he was making magic of sorts. I does however suggest that this Bob were preaching and leading a group of cult members.

 

---edit---

 

I read up on Glycon, and one thing to realize there was that he most likely had a puppet for the snake. So something was visible for the followers to see. How did Peter and the disciples pull that off? I'm not sure.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

I had read that the original "Jesus" was a man named Yesu Nazrim who lived about 100BCE.

What read was this from? Just curious. Never heard this one before.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

History is Science. It's a Social Science. The problem is that many who claim to be Historians do not see it as such and claim it is Philosophy or Art to excuse themselves from the standards of proof and evidence a Scientific Discipline requires. They are doing History a disservice and should have their credentials revoked for it.

 

 

 

They should have their 'credentials revoked' Okay. Don't you agree, that it's not their fault that Jesus affected billions of people, and the Greek gods did not? Why would you consider them less of a historian? Is your statement more because of personal events, revolving around Jesus and Christianity; or are you just a crusader of historical accuracy?

 

 

Abiyoyo,

 

The greek gods were known all over the known world thanks to the influence of Alexander the Great. People today still learn greek mythology and thanks to the works of Joseph Campbell still study the Greek myths to glean valuable insight into the human condition.

 

It's like a movie going from the #1 spot for 10 weeks straight down to 6th, then 7th , then 8th. The movie may not currently be number run, but it had a wide appeal for a long time.

 

It's not like Christianity has a role in history that somehow affirms its divine status. Christianity was dragged along as the Romans and then the parade of dark age, medieval and modern western empires forced their way over the globe. They forced Christianity on people as they forced their empire on the world.

 

To say "Jesus affected billions" is a fantasy.

 

What valuable insight do you believe has come from Greek mythology, compared to Christianity?

[Shyone]

 

What valuable insight do you believe has come from Greek mythology, compared to Christianity?

http://www.amazon.com/Greek-Gods-Human-Lives-Learn/dp/0300101457

 

The concept of hubris, for one thing, taken out of the religious context and applied to daily life, is a valuable lesson in situation specific humility.

 

Wht we can learn from them has to do with - everything.

[Ouroboros]

Greek mythology and prose was the beginning of Greek philosophy, which in turn influenced Christianity. So yeah, Greek mythology was part in the chain of events which led to the "great" religion.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

If you think about it, it is kind of like santa - there was a real man (a few perhaps) who were pretty cool. Then we decided to smash all the stories together and call him Santa Clause and tell our kids to believe in him. Then they get older and realize that that man does not exist, though there was once someone like him, and parents try to continue the idea in their memory. Jesus was a guy or two and their stories were told and finally recorded, giving all the credit to the one guy because it was the idea behind the stories that made a difference to the writers. Not empirical truth, just a nice idea inspired by presumably nice guys. Now long since changed and adapted and taken more literally than was ever intended. Fascinating really.

 

Well, unless you believe Tacitus is a fraud, which puts you in a conspirator group, then there was a man, that had a following, whom they referred to as Christus. And whether you want to believe the other works speaking about Jesus from that era is within your opinion.

 

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

[bdp]

You already know this, but Tacitus is merely repeating things he's been told as far as 'christus' being put to death by Pilate, he's not a witness to anything.

[Shyone]

 

Well, unless you believe Tacitus is a fraud, which puts you in a conspirator group, then there was a man, that had a following, whom they referred to as Christus. And whether you want to believe the other works speaking about Jesus from that era is within your opinion.

 

Where would Tacitus have gotten this information? Not through personal observation, but second hand.

 

So you too get your information second hand.

 

Consider the following:

 

Christianity grew out of a mixture of Persian Mithraism, Judaism and the works of individuals such as St. Paul who gave us written records of this synthesis.

 

"Paul mistook the Jewish "Messiah" to mean the Hellenistic "Christ". This happened before anything was written down; it happened during Paul's conversations with people as he was working through what had happened. A messiah is a person who is a great leader who leads your people to freedom. The title was taken by Jews from Persian culture. A christ is a god-king who dies as an offering to some divine being as a sacrifice in return for prosperity, especially agricultural prosperity. Both are anointed with oil as a mystical, sexual rite."

Christos (site down) or Jesus didn't exist (site down)

 

"It was in Tarsus that the Mysteries of Mithras had originated, so it would have been unthinkable that Paul would have been unaware of the remarkable similarities we have already explored between Christian doctrines and the teachings of Mithraism. [Footnote:] Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, where, according to Plutarch [46-125CE], the Mithraic Mysteries were being practiced as early as 67BCE

 

"Christ" and "Christus" are greek terms derived from Mithraism. "Messiah" was a Hebrew term meaning Great Leader.

 

That's what happens when you don't get things first hand. Paul never Met whatshisname (Jesus, Yesu, Yeshua, etc.). He got in on the religion indirectly and made a new person, a new religion, and this has nothing to do with the actual person that started the whole ball rolling.

[Abiyoyo]

Where would Tacitus have gotten this information? Not through personal observation, but second hand.

 

So you too get your information second hand.

 

Consider the following:

 

Christianity grew out of a mixture of Persian Mithraism, Judaism and the works of individuals such as St. Paul who gave us written records of this synthesis.

 

"Paul mistook the Jewish "Messiah" to mean the Hellenistic "Christ". This happened before anything was written down; it happened during Paul's conversations with people as he was working through what had happened. A messiah is a person who is a great leader who leads your people to freedom. The title was taken by Jews from Persian culture. A christ is a god-king who dies as an offering to some divine being as a sacrifice in return for prosperity, especially agricultural prosperity. Both are anointed with oil as a mystical, sexual rite."

Christos (site down) or Jesus didn't exist (site down)

 

"It was in Tarsus that the Mysteries of Mithras had originated, so it would have been unthinkable that Paul would have been unaware of the remarkable similarities we have already explored between Christian doctrines and the teachings of Mithraism. [Footnote:] Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, where, according to Plutarch [46-125CE], the Mithraic Mysteries were being practiced as early as 67BCE

 

"Christ" and "Christus" are greek terms derived from Mithraism. "Messiah" was a Hebrew term meaning Great Leader.

 

That's what happens when you don't get things first hand. Paul never Met whatshisname (Jesus, Yesu, Yeshua, etc.). He got in on the religion indirectly and made a new person, a new religion, and this has nothing to do with the actual person that started the whole ball rolling.

 

That is speculative information, and is thought to be based from Zoroastrianism. As far as Mithraism, much of any support for the sect is through paintings and remnants, and not literature. But, I don't doubt that it may have been practiced, since the Greeks believed Ahura Mazda was Zeus. This does not mean that they converted to Zoroaster, or the other.

 

Groups, sects, God men were common among Greek culture. So, to say that it didn't exist wouldn't be correct, but to assert that Christianity is a 'copy'; well, that is just bogus. Christianity, Christus, King of the Jews, was the Jewish Messiah; and for that very reason, was probably why He wasn't spoken about much.

 

Here we have all these gods being worshiped in Rome. We could play, "Name your god". BUT, here's the kicker, Jesus, claimed Jewish heritage, and worshiped one God. The point is that we have enough to say that if Jesus lived, and claimed Judaism, He served one God.

 

We could go all day with the similarities and comparisons of differences between Jesus and Mithra, but there is one thing that maybe you should consider.

 

The people that DO this for a living, career, devote their lives to research, study, etc. The reason they don't hold a press conference with CNN, Larry King, etc for this ground breaking news, ...is because their is none really. Just paintings and remnants, and theories.

[NonXNonExX]

Here is my own "arrogant assertion," based on the principle that the simplest solution is the one most likely to be right, or at least close.

 

Jesus, or whatever his name originally was, led a bunch of rugged semi-outlaws in an uprising against the Roman empire. The reasons for this were many. Many Jews were content to go along with the Roman regime to keep the peace, but there are always those hardliners who want to make trouble. And sometimes their cause is just. At any rate, he was caught and executed as a rebel by the Romans. The story then splits into several streams.

 

In the diaspora, a legend is born among diaspora Jews and "god-fearers." They hear a distorted version of actual events to begin with and the true story is further buried in exaggeration and fantasy as it gets retold over and over, leaving less and less of what really happened.

 

In the meantime, James, brother of Jesus either by blood or as part of some kind of religious brotherhood, takes over the movement to bring Jews back to the "true Judaism."

 

Paul, originally opposed to the "early church," finds that diverting the movement is a better tactic than directly opposing it, especially since his own innovations make it more palatable to the Gentiles for a number of reasons. Because of this, and the fact that he was a bully and liar who would do anything to get his way, his version eventually wins out and the original "early church" of the James gang fades into legend. One curious thing about Paul's writings is that he never admits that any of the James gang actually knew a Jesus, let alone the mythical being that Paul describes.

 

Mark, writing from a location far from where the events actually takes place, pens a crude story loosely based on the legend current in the diaspora buttressed by some twisted references from the OT.

 

Mark's version becomes very popular. It indirectly and allegorically takes swipes at the Romans, appeals to the OT accepted by the "god-fearers" and is comforting to Jews who have just seen their precious temple razed to the ground. But others recognize the need for a more refined version, leading to Matthew and Luke's version. Crude though it may have been (poor grammar, obvious lack of knowledge about the geography of the area in which the story takes place and Jewish custom, etc.), Mark's version is too well known to fade away in spite of the improved versions. Acts, painting a picture entirely different than that in the epistles, attempts to bring Paul into the fold. As the movement develops another author recognizes the need to counter the growing Gnostic cult and creates GJohn in response.

 

As the movement grows, attempts are made to harmonize the writings of Paul and the popular romances known as the Gospels. I think that somewhere in the writings attributed to Paul are the genuine thoughts of a megalomaniac religious leader, but even those have been so heavily edited and added to that it's impossible to tell where the original ends and the revisions begin. Some, probably most, are outright forgeries, or pseudepigrapha if you will, but bits and pieces seem to me to be authentic. Later the collection of writings attributed to Paul just become a convenient vehicle for imposing order on the growing church. The rest, as they say, is history.

 

I realize there are as many theories out there are there are experts are the subject, but for me this seems to be the most likely scenario. Any points for which someone can point to hard conflicting evidence would be greatly appreciated. Like Ken Humphreys, i've never been a real Christian, but like him i find the subject extremely fascinating. I even enjoy reading the twisted logic and wishful thinking of true believers such as Abiyoyo and LNC.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

I realize there are as many theories out there are there are experts are the subject, but for me this seems to be the most likely scenario. Any points for which someone can point to hard conflicting evidence would be greatly appreciated. Like Ken Humphreys, i've never been a real Christian, but like him i find the subject extremely fascinating. I even enjoy reading the twisted logic and wishful thinking of true believers such as Abiyoyo and LNC.

 

And, I also enjoy reading the speculation from conspirators.

[dagnarus]

The people that DO this for a living, career, devote their lives to research, study, etc. The reason they don't hold a press conference with CNN, Larry King, etc for this ground breaking news, ...is because their is none really. Just paintings and remnants, and theories.

 

So you agree with the Op that Jesus being a historical figure is just a belief, not fact.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

 

 

I had read that the original "Jesus" was a man named Yesu Nazrim who lived about 100BCE.

What read was this from? Just curious. Never heard this one before.

 

 

I read it on a webpage that had sources cited but I do not remember them, and I thought I had the page bookmarked but can't find it right now. So, that's not really helpful. I will try to find it and post it here. Not saying its 'true' or fact, but its an interesting theory that I had not read before either.