Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Was There A Historical Jesus?


ShackledNoMore

Recommended Posts

I know this has been discussed in various threads in the past, but I thought it would make an interesting poll topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodbye Jesus
  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Neon Genesis

    40

  • dagnarus

    29

  • Shyone

    12

  • ShackledNoMore

    11

My gut response to Was there a historical Jesus? is What's the difference? But I voted jury's out, and I'm fully convinced of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I voted like bdp.

 

There's no way to be sure there was even a real person that inspired the Jesus stories. My thought is that if someone actually created the ruckus the Jesus character did in the story, there would probably be lots of independent accounts and official records of his shenanigans. There aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't even voted in my own poll -- yet.

 

I've done some reading and probing the question. I think that if I delved into it extensively, I might (or might not) start to reach conclusions that I could really defend. Certainly if there were a historical Jesus that had the following that xianity claims he did, then I would expect independent corroborating documentation outside of the bible that was more timely, more compelling, and more voluminous that what we see, even without accompanying signs and miracles.

 

I also agree that the answer does not matter (interesting question though it may be). The mere existence of a historical Jesus is not important one way or the other in discrediting xianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted "jury's still out", because, if I was given a choice of possibilities, I would have gone with either a "composite Jesus", or "warped", or "insane." Composite and warped are the most likely, with a strong possibility of "insane" being included in both of them. But really, there's hardly any way to tell for sure. Maybe a moral teacher composite created by crazy people. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shackled, I just want to say that you did a good job of summarizing all the different positions on this subject! I was impressed.

 

I saw a show on TV years ago, with different Biblical scholars, maybe Crossan and a few other well known ones. I can't remember who said it, but one of them said that some real person must have been behind all this development, and to me it was very persuasive. At that point I agreed and from then on I have just accepted that Jesus was probably, very likely, a real historical man. Therefore, I voted that he was an ordinary man behind the mythology. No one really knows, of course, but that was my decision on the subject. It in no way does it mean that Christianity is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figure the stories about Jesus are about as historically reliable as the Mormon stories about Joseph Smith. There was probably a guy who drew followers to himself and was blown out of proportion until he became identified with various myths of the time about a virgin birth and a son of a god. There are guys today that people think are the son of God. An ex Seventh Day pastor in New Mexico has followers that worship him. The guys in the group even let him screw their wives. They call it "consummating their marriage with the Lamb of God". Apparently people haven't changed a bit in their willingness to be sheeplike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No jesus ever, period. No Moses either, ever, period.

 

The New Testament was written as an answer to apologetical teachings and to give credibility for the christian religion. Ever wonder why there is such a gap in teachings from the OT until the NT? The Jewish religion was in its setting days, its days were over as a power. The people were beginning to become disgruntled with what they were being taught religiously as well as the law of Rome was as much of a pain in the butt then as modern law is today. An occupied society is an unhappy one, sort of like America today. Almost 400 years elapsed between the final writings of the OT and the beginning of the fiction of Christianity. The NT wasn't written until 60 to 90 years after the last apostle died. How convenient is that? No one left to ask whether the writings were true or not. All of a sudden all these books started hitting the shelves at the local market--I'm joking. But they did start appearing just when people began to question religious authority. Suddenly there was a book with answers to their questions. Then another problem came up and holy cow, there's another book or letter that solved that problem too. Then 600 years after Jesus' died low and behold Islam makes an appearance with mentionings about the NT writings in the Quran. Christians took it as a sign their writings were true and Muslims took it as a sign that their writings were true because it also mentioned the NT writings Christians had been driving them crazy with for centuries. Now everyone had a book that mentioned everyone else's book and everyone took it for granted everyone was telling the truth. The only connection between the NT and OT is the traditional teachings of the church, no substance, all talk.

 

I see how much traditional teaching has taken hold of the church today every time i ask a question on YahooAnswers. The answers I get to basic Christian doctrine are some of the dumbest bunch of shit I've seen in YEARS!

:Doh:

 

If I ask questions about why christians believe the stupid shit they believe, no one responds but if I teach a 'class' in church doctrine, I get a lot of responses. No one knows what the hell they are talking about but they have something to say that reflects their church doctrine. Traditions. So I draw a parallel between Christian tradition and the scripture of Jeremiah that tells OT believers to beware of the traditional teachings posing as laws because they were lies not given by god to Moses. Biblical prophets did have a purpose, and that was to keep an eye on the writings. Not many Christian preachers ever discuss the book of Jeremiah because of this reason. And, the writers of the NT perhaps unwittingly wrote this same sentiment into NT books. Does this sound familiar, 'in vain do they worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' What commandments? The ten commandments the writer's claim god gave Moses. There are warnings scattered all through the OT and NT warning not to put trust on traditional teachings because over time these teachings become law.

 

Here are just a few:

 

... For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices...But they did not listen, they paid no heed, but went ahead with their own plans with the most stubbornly wicked and evil hearts...Speak to them but they will refuse to listen to you. Call to them but they will refuse to answer... truth has perished from their lips and it is no longer heard in the land. (Jeremiah7:21)

 

Mat 15:3 But He answered and said to them, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

 

But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions, and strivings about the Law, for they are unprofitable and vain. (Tit 3:9)

 

(Jer 7:8) Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot do any good.

 

Jer 8:8 How do you say, We are wise, and the Law of Jehovah is with us? Lo, certainly the lying pen of the scribes has written falsely.

 

Jas 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their afflictions, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

 

Mat 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and you have left undone the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith. You ought to have done these and not to leave the other undone.

 

Mat 15:8-9 "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. (9) But in vain they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

 

And an entire Chapter in Romans, Chapter Two, is devoted to instructing Christians not to preach the Law, especially to Gentiles.

 

While people worship Jesus and claim there is a historical character out there named 'Jesus,' there is no Jesus, the prophecies concerning him exist only in the minds of Christians and the prophets themeselves warned that what is written could not be trusted.

 

And, that is the sermon of the evangelical atheist spreading the good word that The Word™ is not proven and not to be trusted as inspired by god. And if god's word cannot be trusted then neither can the tales of any historical Jesus. Evidence is still required. Proof is still demanded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's possible that a historical Jesus existed but whatever he was really like has been lost to us and we might never know the truth about the historical Jesus, but I think it's certainly a fascinating mystery to try and solve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where would one start to look for a historical jesus? There are no original documents for comparison in order to see what has been added to the old text or what was left out. Who's word do we take that Jesus was real? All we have to go on is the word of the church and their word leaves a lot to be desired for honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Jesus the man existed in an historical time and historical location.

I believe he was a Jew

I believe he taught about God and believed he was the Son

I believe he was crucified and killed for causing a ruckus

I have faith he rose from the dead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Jesus the man existed in an historical time and historical location.

I believe he was a Jew

I believe he taught about God and believed he was the Son

I believe he was crucified and killed for causing a ruckus

I have faith he rose from the dead

"Faith is believing somethin' you know ain't true."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Jesus the man existed in an historical time and historical location.

I believe he was a Jew

I believe he taught about God and believed he was the Son

I believe he was crucified and killed for causing a ruckus

I have faith he rose from the dead

"Faith is believing somethin' you know ain't true."

I'd go with 'faith is believing in something you have no evidence for'. It can't be proven either way, which as always, is frustratingly vague and unhelpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went with "The jury's out," since there's no way to know for sure if there was a Jesus whom the stories are based on.

 

That being said, if such a Jesus did exist, all accounts of him are so embellished that we don't actually have a "historical" record of his life (just speculations), and therefore he's not technically the "historical Jesus." So, in that sense I would say that there wasn't a historical Jesus, and I am confident in that assessment.

 

Personally, I lean toward the belief that Jesus is purely mythological, that he was an amalgamated character based on stories from various religions who evolved into being perceived as a true, physical, historical individual. I'm not convinced of that, but at the moment it seems the most likely scenario to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where would one start to look for a historical jesus? There are no original documents for comparison in order to see what has been added to the old text or what was left out. Who's word do we take that Jesus was real? All we have to go on is the word of the church and their word leaves a lot to be desired for honesty.

There have been attempts by secular scholars to reconstruct the original sayings of Jesus from the gospel accounts. The current hypothesis is that there was a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus written before the synoptic gospels that Matthew and Luke are based on. Scholars have been trying to shift through the gospel accounts to determine which verses date back to Jesus and which ones are the inventions of the gospel writers using various methods of criteria. There are a lots of different views among scholars on who Jesus could have been. Some scholars think Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew who believed the end of the world was going to happen in his life time and that God would establish an earthly kingdom. Others believe Jesus was a cryptic sage and some scholars believe Jesus was a Jewish mystic who wanted to reform society. Even if you could reconstruct the Q gospel as faithfully as possible, it's still only hypothetical if this is the real Jesus, so like I said, we might never know for certain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Jesus the man existed in an historical time and historical location.

I believe he was a Jew

I believe he taught about God and believed he was the Son

I believe he was crucified and killed for causing a ruckus

I have faith he rose from the dead

"Faith is believing somethin' you know ain't true."

I'd go with 'faith is believing in something you have no evidence for'. It can't be proven either way, which as always, is frustratingly vague and unhelpful.

That does not make it reasonable.

 

I have no reason to believe that there is a leprechaun hiding in my back yard. The fact that I cannot prove that there is not one does not make a reasonable supposition that there is, nor do I think of it frustratingly vague or unhelpful.

 

Once a person gets past his own indoctrination and makes an honest evaluation, Jesus (or Yahweh, for that matter) being a supreme deity is not a reasonable supposition, either. There was once a time when I considered that frustrating, but that was long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted an ordinary man but mythology twisted him beyond all recognition.

 

I think there may have been a man behind all the stories (and behind the movement that later became christianity) - he was probably a messiah figure who was more spiritually inclined than politically inclined - and he is probably the one that did the cleansing of the temple and challenged the pharisees a lot. Maybe he even caused enough trouble to get himself crucified. Those things are all plausible. But a heck of a lot of mythology got added on afterwards and most things in the gospels are stories that got handed down word-of-mouth and got exagerrated in the telling, or they reflect the opinions and beliefs of the gospel writer, or they are myths and fables that got added into the narrative for reasons of symbolic resonance.

 

I'm only somewhat sure. It's also possible that he is a composite of different historical figures (with some mythology thrown in). Or that he never existed at all.

 

As a point of interest, I went through a transitional period (years ago, in the late 90s) when I thought that Jesus was an 'enlightened' spiritual man like a Buddha or a Hindu sage - the western equivalent of that sort of thing. I used to refer to him as the 'Buddha of the West' and that just like the Buddha, Jesus ushered in a new level of human consciousness. The 'Holy Spirit' was some kind of mystical enlightenment in my view at the time. Of course, I believed that the teachings had gotten twisted and misunderstood over time so that Jesus's original message, and the original meaning of the Holy Spirit had got lost completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus is entirely a Myth. There is not one single contemporary historical reference to Jesus. There is actually more evidence for the existence of Santa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is actually more evidence for the existence of Santa.

 

I just knew I heard something on the roof on Christmas Eve!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know one thing for sure about this whole "Jesus" business. Even if, somehow, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was a Yeshua ben Yosef in ancient Judea, he taught stuff in the streets, got in trouble with the local Jews, then the Romans, and was crucified, I would still say "Huh...ok...and?"

Just because someone is real doesn't mean they're special, or validate their religion. Mohammad is a real, recorded historical person. He existed. Do I believe in Islam? HELL no! L. Ron Hubbard existed. Is Scientology true? I'm not rich enough to "know", but I still say fuck no! Basically, even if there is a "Historical Jesus", it wouldn't compel me to jump back on the Jesus wagon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mohammad is a real, recorded historical person. He existed.

 

Um, actually, from what can I gather, Mohammad and Jesus both have just as much historical backing for their existence as each other. None of Mohammad's biographies were written within a century of when everything was supposed to have taken place I believe. And apparently most of his biographies were written specifically with the purpose of giving context to the Koran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked composite of a few men/ legends. I think for his teachings and sayings it seems like, as Shyone points out in another thread, there are at least 2 people talking as he contradicts himself. Also I think Paul's teaching influenced everything enough to further skew what it is that might have been said. Certain miracles seem tacked on and mimic that of other gods or are forcibly inserted with OT scripture acting as prophecy. Certain things, like the nativity story I believe are entirely legend. There was probably one figure who made more impact than the others from whom we get the derived name.

 

Honestly I do look at it like Santa Claus in a lot of ways. There were a few men that the stories are based on, St. Nickolaus, Kris Kringle, etc with a heavy dose of mythology, omniscience and immortality we get the well known character we have today. Is this character real? No. It does not represent the historical figures whatsoever. But at least we have some documentation of the real men behind the Santa stories. We don't have that with Jesus.

 

And I agree with Luna, even if we did all we'd have is proof of a guy, like St. Nickolaus which doesn't make the Santa figure real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know one thing for sure about this whole "Jesus" business. Even if, somehow, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was a Yeshua ben Yosef in ancient Judea, he taught stuff in the streets, got in trouble with the local Jews, then the Romans, and was crucified, I would still say "Huh...ok...and?"

Just because someone is real doesn't mean they're special, or validate their religion. Mohammad is a real, recorded historical person. He existed. Do I believe in Islam? HELL no! L. Ron Hubbard existed. Is Scientology true? I'm not rich enough to "know", but I still say fuck no! Basically, even if there is a "Historical Jesus", it wouldn't compel me to jump back on the Jesus wagon.

This one's a keeper. That pretty much sums it up. All of the ancient Roman, Jewish, or Christian sources, interpolations, lies and fabrications don't matter one flip, because the whole enchilada is absurd.

 

Some may believe "because it's absurd", but for the rest of us, we'd like a little common sense with our common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went with option number 2. "Yes. Traditional accounts have a bona fide historical basis, but have been exaggerated to some extent."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked composite of a few men/ legends. I think for his teachings and sayings it seems like, as Shyone points out in another thread, there are at least 2 people talking as he contradicts himself.

 

It only takes one person too contradict himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.