The Historicity Of Jesus

[★ Citsonga ★]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV2nRgFGq5Q

 

Enjoy!

[oddbird1963]

That was a good summary of why Jesus' historicity cannot be established from the Bible and extra-Biblical documentation.

[HRDWarrior]

Great, loved it! Wish I could have listened to this type of thing with an open mind when I was still a christian...

[FourDogBrewing]

This is excellent, I wish I could be that eloquent.

 

Good listening, thanks for sharing.

[Corky]

Jesus probably did exist, because if they just made him up, the gospel writers wouldn't have bothered to explain how it was that he was born in Bethlehem. Unless it was known at the time that Jesus was from Galilee, there would have been no need to move him to Bethlehem - just simply make up a story of him being born in Bethlehem and have the family move to Galilee. Easy, simple. Unless it was known that he and his family originally lived in Galilee to start with, then the gospel writers would have to make up a story of going to Bethlehem in Judea for, say, the census or for some other reason.

 

The most likely story that I have ever heard about the historicity of Jesus is that he is based on the founder of the Zealots, Judas of Galilee. He taught the same doctrines as Jesus and was executed for the same reasons (claiming to be the Davidic king and teaching people to not pay the Roman tribute). They both were arrested because of cleansing the temple, Judas in 6AD and Jesus in 30AD. There are a lot of other similarities between Judas of Galilee and Jesus of Galilee.

 

This makes me think that he was originally Judas of Galilee but his image was whitewashed by Paul and the later Christian writers. All they had to do was just change his name (like Saul changing his to Paul) and move up the dates. Who could prove any different? It was, after all, written after the first Jewish war except for the letters of Paul - and the letters of Paul say nothing of Jesus' birth place, the virgin birth, the time of his death, an empty tomb or any of the later made up stuff that appears in the gospels.

[Shyone]

Jesus probably did exist, because if they just made him up, the gospel writers wouldn't have bothered to explain how it was that he was born in Bethlehem. Unless it was known at the time that Jesus was from Galilee, there would have been no need to move him to Bethlehem - just simply make up a story of him being born in Bethlehem and have the family move to Galilee. Easy, simple. Unless it was known that he and his family originally lived in Galilee to start with, then the gospel writers would have to make up a story of going to Bethlehem in Judea for, say, the census or for some other reason.

I suppose that if he had been "made up" from nothing, he would have been born in Bethlehem and lived there too instead of the convoluted attempt to make him fulfill the OT prophecy.

 

I think that there was also probably a collection of his sayings (oral at first, then written) that preceded the gospels.

 

Oh, well.

[Corky]

Jesus probably did exist, because if they just made him up, the gospel writers wouldn't have bothered to explain how it was that he was born in Bethlehem. Unless it was known at the time that Jesus was from Galilee, there would have been no need to move him to Bethlehem - just simply make up a story of him being born in Bethlehem and have the family move to Galilee. Easy, simple. Unless it was known that he and his family originally lived in Galilee to start with, then the gospel writers would have to make up a story of going to Bethlehem in Judea for, say, the census or for some other reason.

I suppose that if he had been "made up" from nothing, he would have been born in Bethlehem and lived there too instead of the convoluted attempt to make him fulfill the OT prophecy.

 

I think that there was also probably a collection of his sayings (oral at first, then written) that preceded the gospels.

 

Oh, well.

Just imagine Jesus making a whip and chasing the money changers from the temple. First he would have to overpower the garrison of Roman Centurions stationed there because of the tribute being collected and the temple guards. He didn't do this job alone and he wasn't non-violent.

 

Also, he was supposed to travel all over Galilee and Judea and never once had any problems with the assassins and robbers (Jewish zealots) who frequented the main roads to rob and kill the Jews who were loyal to the Herods and the Roman occupation. Maybe, just maybe because he was the chieftain of the Zealot movement himself, Judas of Galilee.

 

No doubt, Judas was a very religious man but just like the Maccabees, he was also a very violent man. And, just like Jesus, he imagined that he was the Messiah who would restore the kingdom to Israel. Judas and Jesus both are said to be of the household of David, so, at the very least, they were kinfolk.

 

Saul (Paul) of Tarsus was some kind of bounty hunter of Jesus' followers and he hunted them even in Damascus of Syria, which is gentile territory. The only place he could have obtained that authority would be Rome - through the Roman appointed Sadducee high priest in Jerusalem, of course. Rome didn't care about their religious beliefs whatsoever - but Rome did care about hunting down the Zealots that attacked the Roman garrison in Jerusalem in 6AD, which was led by Judas of Galilee.

 

In the NT, Paul claimed to be a Pharisee but would a Pharisee work for a Sadducee appointed by Rome? As it turns out, according to the NT, Paul was a Roman citizen, so, maybe that's no problem. But, how did a Jew of the Pharisee sect become a Roman citizen? Born a citizen? A Jew born a citizen of Rome . . . no way in the world that could happen unless his father was a king or governor of some Roman province somewhere. Foreigners just didn't get to be Roman citizens for no good reason.

[Neon Genesis]

But if the biblical authors based Jesus on Judas of Galilee, why would they reference the person they were inspired by as a failed messiah in Acts 5:37-39 and warn people not to follow the messiah the authors were following?

After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; 39but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!’

[Corky]

But if the biblical authors based Jesus on Judas of Galilee, why would they reference the person they were inspired by as a failed messiah in Acts 5:37-38 and warn people not to follow the messiah the authors were following?

After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; 39but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!’

Unlike Christians, I don't have all the answers. Maybe The Acts were written long, long after the facts (scholars and critic say it was) even the ending of The Acts shows that it was written after Paul had been in Rome for 2 years after his arrest. I seriously doubt that Gamaliel said those things because he was a Pharisee Rabbi and so was Judas of Galilee. It was Zadok, a Pharisee and temple priest, who was Judas' right hand man. Maybe the Christian authors of The Acts wanted to distance themselves from Judas the Galilean - after all, the followers of Judas was being hunted by the authorities. There would have been no reason for the authorities to hunt a pacifist Jewish sect at that time. So, they must have been identified as part of the Zealot movement - whether they really were Zealots or not.

[Neon Genesis]

But I just don't see why the biblical authors would base their leader on a terrorist/freedom fighter, then let their followers know the identity of the man they were basing Jesus on but just don't go and follow him.

[Corky]

But I just don't see why the biblical authors would base their leader on a terrorist/freedom fighter, then let their followers know the identity of the man they were basing Jesus on but just don't go and follow him.

The original followers already knew who he was but the biblical authors after 70AD didn't know. Paul knew who Jesus was but he didn't tell that to his gentile converts and all witnesses to the real facts were dead by the time the gospels were written. Even if they did know, they wouldn't want the Romans to know who they were.

 

The thing is that Judas was killed by the Romans and his followers (about 3,000-5,000) were being hunted by Jewish and Roman authorities. What were they to do? The leaders (apostles) of the movement believed that he was the Messiah so they could either admit that they had been wrong and be humiliated or make up a story about a resurrection and keep their dignity in front of the general membership of the movement.

 

Paul failed to convert them all to his new Christ, so he turned to the gentiles and told them a story that is still believed today. You can bet the leaders of Christianity in Rome don't believe it. If they did they would never have committed the crimes that they are guilty of down through the centuries.

[Guest I Love Dog]

I think that it's true to say that Jesus was a fairly common name in those days of old.

 

Most of the talk and actions of the recorded Jesus(Christ) can be seen as a reworking of old myths, legends and fables, tales from societies so old that the Chinese whisper theory applies. Take a long line of people, have the first person whisper to the second person and pass it along.

 

At Jesus as a reincarnation of Mithra, we can see that nothing in the bybull relating to Jesus is unique to Jesus. It had all been done, seen, before.

 

I feel that it's pointless arguing/discussing the Jesus possibilities except the possibility/probability that he never existed.

 

Did Jesus Exist? I doubt it!

[Corky]

I think that it's true to say that Jesus was a fairly common name in those days of old.

 

Most of the talk and actions of the recorded Jesus(Christ) can be seen as a reworking of old myths, legends and fables, tales from societies so old that the Chinese whisper theory applies. Take a long line of people, have the first person whisper to the second person and pass it along.

 

At Jesus as a reincarnation of Mithra, we can see that nothing in the bybull relating to Jesus is unique to Jesus. It had all been done, seen, before.

 

I feel that it's pointless arguing/discussing the Jesus possibilities except the possibility/probability that he never existed.

 

Did Jesus Exist? I doubt it!

You're right, the Jesus of the Bible did not exist. He was a personification of what the early Christians called "the perfect man". Totally made up from what they thought a perfect man would be like and from what they could glean from the Jewish scripture, which they took totally out of context, to create him. All Christian references to Jesus from prophecies and psalms are simply taken out of the context and applied to their god-man. Those passages they quoted and the passages they still quote have nothing whatever to do with a man who lived in the first century - except, of course, in their imagination.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Jesus probably did exist, because if they just made him up, the gospel writers wouldn't have bothered to explain how it was that he was born in Bethlehem. Unless it was known at the time that Jesus was from Galilee, there would have been no need to move him to Bethlehem - just simply make up a story of him being born in Bethlehem and have the family move to Galilee. Easy, simple. Unless it was known that he and his family originally lived in Galilee to start with, then the gospel writers would have to make up a story of going to Bethlehem in Judea for, say, the census or for some other reason.

 

Only Luke tells the story of them being from Nazareth and going to Bethlehem for a census. The other nativity story, found in Matthew, reads as though they were residents of Bethlehem and only went to Nazareth on their return from Egypt in order to avoid Archelaus' reign in Judea.

 

I did a thread about some of the contradictions in the nativity stories here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/35238-the-amazing-christmas-story/

 

At any rate, the Jesus of the bible never existed. If there was a Jesus or a few guys whom the Jesus stories are loosely based on, which is entirely possible, he was (or they were) not really the Jesus of the bible.

[Corky]

Jesus probably did exist, because if they just made him up, the gospel writers wouldn't have bothered to explain how it was that he was born in Bethlehem. Unless it was known at the time that Jesus was from Galilee, there would have been no need to move him to Bethlehem - just simply make up a story of him being born in Bethlehem and have the family move to Galilee. Easy, simple. Unless it was known that he and his family originally lived in Galilee to start with, then the gospel writers would have to make up a story of going to Bethlehem in Judea for, say, the census or for some other reason.

 

Only Luke tells the story of them being from Nazareth and going to Bethlehem for a census. The other nativity story, found in Matthew, reads as though they were residents of Bethlehem and only went to Nazareth on their return from Egypt in order to avoid Archelaus' reign in Judea.

 

I did a thread about some of the contradictions in the nativity stories here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/35238-the-amazing-christmas-story/

 

At any rate, the Jesus of the bible never existed. If there was a Jesus or a few guys whom the Jesus stories are loosely based on, which is entirely possible, he was (or they were) not really the Jesus of the bible.

Jesus is mostly based on out of context passages from the Old Testament. Almost anything in the OT can be twisted and made to point to Jesus. For example the two spys sent out by Moses who come back carrying a pole with a bunch of grapes carried between them. The pole represents the cross, on which is the first fruit, Jesus, with the two thieves on each side + + +

 

Of course, it means no such thing but I heard a sermon on it one time. I reckon that must have been one of those prophecies that the gospel writers overlooked. The very foundation of the Jesus story is Isaiah 53, "the suffering servant". However, reading the whole context reveals that the suffering servant is Isaiah and those like him who was obedient to God in contrast to the rest of disobedient Israel. In other words, the suffering servant was the chosen "remnant" of Israel who remained loyal and returned from the Babylonian exile and had nothing whatever to do with Jesus.

 

Luke has Jesus born at the time of the census for paying the tribute to Rome. Could it be that he was really Judas "born again" at baptism and changed his name to Jesus? And, why change his name to Jesus? Because the name is actually Joshua in the OT - the conquerer of Canaan, the Messiah.

 

Speaking of name changes, why did Saul change his name to Paul? It was because King Saul in the OT was the enemy of David and the Messiah was supposed to be a son of David. Was Saul/Paul a descendant of King Saul? I don't know, but according to Paul, he was of the tribe of Benjamin - so that would be the right tribe for that. Maybe that was the reason for Paul's persecution of Judas/Jesus' followers in the beginning? Anyway, Paul disappears for 3 years after his "conversion" and comes back and starts preaching a lot of things that don't agree with what Jesus supposedly said in the gospels. Then after 14 years, Paul goes to Jerusalem and has it out with Peter, James and John at the headquarters church in Jerusalem over circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses.

 

Maybe Paul spent those missing 3 years planning how he could better serve Rome by changing the little groups of terrorists scattered everywhere into good law abiding people instead of hunting them down one at a time. The thing is on Paul's second trip to Jerusalem, James had him to pretend to be a law keeper and go to the temple where he was found out and arrested. That's when it comes out that Paul is a Roman citizen and he is transported to Rome and never heard from again. Was his "mission" of being a Roman spy among the terrorists successful? Well, he separated the Jewish terrorists from his gentile converts through the circumcision, which left the Jewish followers of Judas/Jesus being easily identifiable. If all that was his aim, mission accomplished, and now the Romans could start rounding them up. All they had to do was to find out if a suspect was called a "Christian" and then check to see if the suspect was circumcised. When the authorities finally killed James in Jerusalem, that started the first Jewish war between the Jewish Zealots and the Romans. Too much coincidence for it not to all be connected.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

The thing is that Judas was killed by the Romans and his followers (about 3,000-5,000) were being hunted by Jewish and Roman authorities. What were they to do? The leaders (apostles) of the movement believed that he was the Messiah so they could either admit that they had been wrong and be humiliated or make up a story about a resurrection and keep their dignity in front of the general membership of the movement.

 

Paul failed to convert them all to his new Christ, so he turned to the gentiles and told them a story that is still believed today. You can bet the leaders of Christianity in Rome don't believe it. If they did they would never have committed the crimes that they are guilty of down through the centuries.

But one of the criticisms among the pagans of early Christianity was that it was made up of women, slaves, and poor people. One of the early church fathers, Origen, wrote a response to this criticism but instead of denying it was true, he admitted that early Christianity was made up of women, slaves, and poor people, but insisted this was proof of its truthfulness because the wisdom of God was foolishness to the world. If early Christianity was made up of terrorists, why do we just have pagan rants about how Christianity isn't manly enough for them?

[Corky]

 

 

The thing is that Judas was killed by the Romans and his followers (about 3,000-5,000) were being hunted by Jewish and Roman authorities. What were they to do? The leaders (apostles) of the movement believed that he was the Messiah so they could either admit that they had been wrong and be humiliated or make up a story about a resurrection and keep their dignity in front of the general membership of the movement.

 

Paul failed to convert them all to his new Christ, so he turned to the gentiles and told them a story that is still believed today. You can bet the leaders of Christianity in Rome don't believe it. If they did they would never have committed the crimes that they are guilty of down through the centuries.

But one of the criticisms among the pagans of early Christianity was that it was made up of women, slaves, and poor people. One of the early church fathers, Origen, wrote a response to this criticism but instead of denying it was true, he admitted that early Christianity was made up of women, slaves, and poor people, but insisted this was proof of its truthfulness because the wisdom of God was foolishness to the world. If early Christianity was made up of terrorists, why do we just have pagan rants about how Christianity isn't manly enough for them?

Because by the time of Origen and Celsus, that connection couldn't be made. The Jewish war and all the Jews being kicked out of the Christian Church kind of removed all that evidence. Most of the writings of the opposition were destroyed, and Christians still practice book burning from time to time, even today. At the time of Constantine and Eusebius, all other religions were banned and their books destroyed throughout the empire and the persecuted Christians suddenly became the persecutors. They even persecuted other Christians who didn't agree with the new orthodoxy. The Jews had already been disfellowshipped for being Judaizers (urging people to keep the Law of Moses) but during the time of Constantine, everything that even sounded Jewish was removed from the Church. Heh, it's a wonder they didn't kick Jesus out too.

[Neon Genesis]

But then why didn't they suppress the Acts verse about Judas of Galilee and let it get slipped in? Why didn't Josephus note any similarities when he mentioned Judas of Galilee in his writings?

[★ Citsonga ★]

Jesus is mostly based on out of context passages from the Old Testament. Almost anything in the OT can be twisted and made to point to Jesus. For example the two spys sent out by Moses who come back carrying a pole with a bunch of grapes carried between them. The pole represents the cross, on which is the first fruit, Jesus, with the two thieves on each side + + +

 

Exactly! When one doesn't give a rat's ass about context, one can make things mean something completely different from the original author's intent. This is precisely what we have with a lot of the so-called prophetic fulfillments. Here's a link to another thread where I posted a lengthy piece I wrote a few years ago about some of the fabricated prophetic fulfillments in the gospels (post #5): http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/34768-messianic-prophecies/

 

Anyway, in my mind, such liberties taken to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled prophecies is evidence that the stories aren't true, and possibly not even based on a real person. After all, if they were relating factual history, then what impetus would they have to try to bolster their stories by taking OT texts out of context in order to fabricate fulfillments?

 

It's also possible that the gospels may have originally been intended as midrash rather than history anyway.

[Corky]

But then why didn't they suppress the Acts verse about Judas of Galilee and let it get slipped in? Why didn't Josephus note any similarities when he mentioned Judas of Galilee in his writings?

 

They probably purposely put that passage in to show that they were not connected to Judas. You have to remember that at the time the Romans and the Jewish authorities were hunting down the followers of Judas. The Acts were also written after the influence of Paul.

 

I had thought of writing a book on this Judas of Galilee being Jesus of Galilee but someone else beat me to it http://www.religioustolerance.org/unter01.htm, I haven't read his books but I can tell that he found out through some research the same thing I did.

 

Josephus does mention similarities, not in the way of comparing Jesus with Judas but in the way of saying what Judas taught doctrinally, which are the same things as Jesus taught in the New Testament gospels. 2+2, you know.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Josephus does mention similarities, not in the way of comparing Jesus with Judas but in the way of saying what Judas taught doctrinally, which are the same things as Jesus taught in the New Testament gospels. 2+2, you know.

 

I would also note that the Jesus stories in the gospels were fabricated (and therefore if there was a "historical Jesus," he certainly wasn't the Jesus of the gospels), thus meaning that there would have been nothing really there for Josephus to have made such a comparison about.

[Corky]

Jesus is mostly based on out of context passages from the Old Testament. Almost anything in the OT can be twisted and made to point to Jesus. For example the two spys sent out by Moses who come back carrying a pole with a bunch of grapes carried between them. The pole represents the cross, on which is the first fruit, Jesus, with the two thieves on each side + + +

 

Exactly! When one doesn't give a rat's ass about context, one can make things mean something completely different from the original author's intent. This is precisely what we have with a lot of the so-called prophetic fulfillments. Here's a link to another thread where I posted a lengthy piece I wrote a few years ago about some of the fabricated prophetic fulfillments in the gospels (post #5): http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/34768-messianic-prophecies/

 

Anyway, in my mind, such liberties taken to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled prophecies is evidence that the stories aren't true, and possibly not even based on a real person. After all, if they were relating factual history, then what impetus would they have to try to bolster their stories by taking OT texts out of context in order to fabricate fulfillments?

 

It's also possible that the gospels may have originally been intended as midrash rather than history anyway.

That's possible. I used to think they just made up a personification of what they thought was "the perfect man", and, at least in part, I think that's true. Later, then, they made him into a literal man who actually did walk the earth. I think those that denied the literal, flesh and blood Jesus is who the writer of the epistles of John called the antichrists.

[dagnarus]

Just imagine Jesus making a whip and chasing the money changers from the temple. First he would have to overpower the garrison of Roman Centurions stationed there because of the tribute being collected and the temple guards. He didn't do this job alone and he wasn't non-violent.

 

Or the gospel writers could have made up the entire incident.

 

Also, he was supposed to travel all over Galilee and Judea and never once had any problems with the assassins and robbers (Jewish zealots) who frequented the main roads to rob and kill the Jews who were loyal to the Herods and the Roman occupation. Maybe, just maybe because he was the chieftain of the Zealot movement himself, Judas of Galilee.

 

No doubt, Judas was a very religious man but just like the Maccabees, he was also a very violent man. And, just like Jesus, he imagined that he was the Messiah who would restore the kingdom to Israel. Judas and Jesus both are said to be of the household of David, so, at the very least, they were kinfolk.

 

Saul (Paul) of Tarsus was some kind of bounty hunter of Jesus' followers and he hunted them even in Damascus of Syria, which is gentile territory. The only place he could have obtained that authority would be Rome - through the Roman appointed Sadducee high priest in Jerusalem, of course. Rome didn't care about their religious beliefs whatsoever - but Rome did care about hunting down the Zealots that attacked the Roman garrison in Jerusalem in 6AD, which was led by Judas of Galilee.

 

In the NT, Paul claimed to be a Pharisee but would a Pharisee work for a Sadducee appointed by Rome? As it turns out, according to the NT, Paul was a Roman citizen, so, maybe that's no problem. But, how did a Jew of the Pharisee sect become a Roman citizen? Born a citizen? A Jew born a citizen of Rome . . . no way in the world that could happen unless his father was a king or governor of some Roman province somewhere. Foreigners just didn't get to be Roman citizens for no good reason.

 

I think the main problem here is that this line of reasoning requires that you take certain parts of the NT story as fact, yet others as being fiction. How do you seperate the two out? Do you just pick the aspects which agree with your pet theory? The simple fact of the matter is, that the historical validity of everything in the NT is shaky at best. We might as well assume everything is fiction.

[Corky]

Josephus does mention similarities, not in the way of comparing Jesus with Judas but in the way of saying what Judas taught doctrinally, which are the same things as Jesus taught in the New Testament gospels. 2+2, you know.

 

I would also note that the Jesus stories in the gospels were fabricated (and therefore if there was a "historical Jesus," he certainly wasn't the Jesus of the gospels), thus meaning that there would have been nothing really there for Josephus to have made such a comparison about.

Right! And, I think most scholars agree that the small paragraph in Josephus where Jesus is mentioned is an interpolation by Christians. There was only one man in the early first century who had anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 followers in Judea was Judas of Galilee - not Jesus.

[★ Citsonga ★]

The simple fact of the matter is, that the historical validity of everything in the NT is shaky at best. We might as well assume everything is fiction.

 

My thoughts exactly! Sure, there may be a few true details in the bible, but even tabloids print a few true details, so should we consider a tabloid to be a reliable source of information? No need to state the obvious answer to that question....