Was There A Historical Jesus?

[Mriana]

No we cannot confirm that Jesus existed through archeology. There has been no evidence that he ever existed even with archeology. I have to ask where do you get your information from Ionelee?

I think I read it in a Time magazine article a number of years ago. But as qadeshet pointed out, it was a fraud.

 

Time magazine? That is a Pop magazine, much like that Preventive health magazine. You can't take everything it says as fact, but I guess you figured that out already.

 

In my opinion, Jesus was almost certainly a mythical character. Why do I say this? Because many early Christians said so. It was widely accepted among Christian gnostics that Jesus was simply a mythical figure whose stories were to be interpreted metaphorically. It is inconceivable to me that Christians would deny the physical existence of their Lord and saviour.

 

Um, what if they were just gnostics who stumbled on the Christian religion, thought that was interesting, decided to merge Christianity into their current religion, but that he couldn't have been physichal because the physichal is evil?

 

You may be right. The Gnostic stories are more interesting though.

[Mriana]

Christians have been desperately searching for evidence supporting the Gospel story for 2000 years. Everytime something new is supposedly discovered, it turns out to be a fraud. And every few years Noah's Ark is discovered. The Gospel story is sheer myth, and once all the mythical elements are removed, no room is left for a historical Jesus. That being said, G.R.S. Mead made a good case that Jesus lived ca 100 BC.

 

Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?

 

Exactly, but the problem is, the Xians don't know or reject that these things have been shown false and are not evidence for a historical Jesus.

[Shyone]

I think we can confirm through archeology that *a* Jesus did exist. I think I even read an article once which said archeology found a tombstone or something of the like which belonged to "James, brother of Jesus". The inscription was to prove Jesus really did exist. Whether Jesus and James were common names, I don't know. I think Jesus was (not the 'evangelicalized' version, but his actual name). I'm guessing James was, too. That the two names would appear together as being brothers doesn't necessarily confirm the biblical Jesus. And even if it could be proved that the biblical Jesus did indeed exist during the time and in the place the bible says he existed, it doesn't prove any stories concerning him. We could start rumors that Criss Angel is a god. Proving he is a real person doesn't prove our claims of him.

There was a bone box that had an inscription: "James, brother of Jesus, son of Joseph" I beleive, but it turns out it was a forgery. Oh well. I keep hoping they'll find a box that says, "Jesus of nazareth" full of bones. Then they can cancel Easter.

 

Funny, they used to do forgeries to support the faith; now they do them for money. What is the world coming to?

[Ouroboros]

The James ossuary is kind of strange thing. I know Christians who still use that as some kind of evidence for the existence of Jesus. But at the same time they have no problem discounting the Talpiot tomb! So the name "Jesus" on one box is the "right" Jesus, while the "Jesus" on the next box is the "wrong" Jesus?

[dagnarus]

 

Isn't this somewhat circular? Jesus was a real person because his earliest followers were Jews, because Jesus was a real Jewish person. What if Christianity originated with gentiles who were enamored of the Jewish religion, who wanted a means of getting in, which hopefully didn't involve skinning their willy.

You are missing my point. My point is that there is no evidence I'm aware of for the argument that the early Christians were Gnostics who had no problems believing in a mythical Jesus and Jesus was therefore mythical. The earliest followers of Jesus were Jews and please present your evidence that Christianity was originally a Gentile faith and not a Jewish faith.

 

Why? I don't hold to that position, I actually am leaning towards a historical Jesus. Is there any evidence for the earliest Christians being Jews outside of the Gospels and Acts? While they can be considered as evidence, and are possibly the best which can be worked with, they have been edited and written to support the theological views of various different parties? Also were there any Jewish Church Fathers? Other than Paul, who apparently doesn't sound very Jewish in his epistles.

[Neon Genesis]

But then Paul's epistles don't sound very Gnostic either. The Gnostics believed that even sex within marriage was a sin and while Paul preferred celebacy, he didn't forbid Christians from having sex in marriage. The Gnostics were polytheists and Paul was monotheist and as far as I'm aware, I don't recall seeing any evidence that the monotheistic elements in Paul's epistles were later additions other than mere speculation. While Paul was against following the old law, Paul never condemned Jews who followed the old law while the Gnostics believed the OT god was an evil false god. There's also nothing in Paul's epistles about understanding the secret teachings of Jesus which the Gnostics believed in and instead for Paul, salvation comes from having faith in the resurrection.

[Shyone]

 

Isn't this somewhat circular? Jesus was a real person because his earliest followers were Jews, because Jesus was a real Jewish person. What if Christianity originated with gentiles who were enamored of the Jewish religion, who wanted a means of getting in, which hopefully didn't involve skinning their willy.

You are missing my point. My point is that there is no evidence I'm aware of for the argument that the early Christians were Gnostics who had no problems believing in a mythical Jesus and Jesus was therefore mythical. The earliest followers of Jesus were Jews and please present your evidence that Christianity was originally a Gentile faith and not a Jewish faith.

 

Why? I don't hold to that position, I actually am leaning towards a historical Jesus. Is there any evidence for the earliest Christians being Jews outside of the Gospels and Acts? While they can be considered as evidence, and are possibly the best which can be worked with, they have been edited and written to support the theological views of various different parties? Also were there any Jewish Church Fathers? Other than Paul, who apparently doesn't sound very Jewish in his epistles.

My opinion doesn't count for much on this, but Peter would have been a Jewish Church Father if he indeed went to Rome. Looks to me like Mark and Paul divided up the kingdom, and Paul went to Rome and Mark went to Alexandria.

[Mriana]

 

Isn't this somewhat circular? Jesus was a real person because his earliest followers were Jews, because Jesus was a real Jewish person. What if Christianity originated with gentiles who were enamored of the Jewish religion, who wanted a means of getting in, which hopefully didn't involve skinning their willy.

You are missing my point. My point is that there is no evidence I'm aware of for the argument that the early Christians were Gnostics who had no problems believing in a mythical Jesus and Jesus was therefore mythical. The earliest followers of Jesus were Jews and please present your evidence that Christianity was originally a Gentile faith and not a Jewish faith.

 

Why? I don't hold to that position, I actually am leaning towards a historical Jesus. Is there any evidence for the earliest Christians being Jews outside of the Gospels and Acts? While they can be considered as evidence, and are possibly the best which can be worked with, they have been edited and written to support the theological views of various different parties? Also were there any Jewish Church Fathers? Other than Paul, who apparently doesn't sound very Jewish in his epistles.

My opinion doesn't count for much on this, but Peter would have been a Jewish Church Father if he indeed went to Rome. Looks to me like Mark and Paul divided up the kingdom, and Paul went to Rome and Mark went to Alexandria.

 

Paul was of mix ancestry (Jewish and Roman, I think) supposedly and according to the story.

[dagnarus]

But then Paul's epistles don't sound very Gnostic either. The Gnostics believed that even sex within marriage was a sin and while Paul preferred celebacy, he didn't forbid Christians from having sex in marriage. The Gnostics were polytheists and Paul was monotheist and as far as I'm aware, I don't recall seeing any evidence that the monotheistic elements in Paul's epistles were later additions other than mere speculation. While Paul was against following the old law, Paul never condemned Jews who followed the old law while the Gnostics believed the OT god was an evil false god. There's also nothing in Paul's epistles about understanding the secret teachings of Jesus which the Gnostics believed in and instead for Paul, salvation comes from having faith in the resurrection.

 

Didn't we already discuss this? Here's a quote from Religious tolerance.org

 

Christian writers who attacked Gnosticism sometimes reported conflicting accounts of sexual behavior among Gnostics. Some wrote that some Gnostic groups appeared to have suppressed all sexual expression; their membership were expected to remain celibate. Other Christian writers criticized other Gnostic groups for allegedly practicing ritual sex magic. Where the truth lies is anyone's guess.

 

In all likelihood the Gnostics were no more monolithic than the rest of Christianity. Secondly from reading the Wikipedia article (yeah, I know) it doesn't seem like the Gnostics believed salvation came from secret teachings, rather they thought the secret teachings helped people come to the inner self knowledge necessary for salvation. It should be noted that Paul doesn't say that things end with faith in Jesus ressurection, Christ has to grow in the believer, he has to have his mind transformed, he has to know Christ and the Power of his Resurrection. Why did Paul say this in Philipians

 

Phillipians 3: 8More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of ®knowing (S)Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,

 

9and may be found in Him, not having (T)a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, (U)the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,

 

10that I may (V)know Him and (W)the power of His resurrection and (X)the fellowship of His sufferings, being (Y)conformed to His death;

 

11in order that I may (Z)attain to the resurrection from the dead.

 

12Not that I have already (AA)obtained it or have already (AB)become perfect, but I press on so that I may (AC)lay hold of that for which also I (AD)was laid hold of by (AE)Christ Jesus.

 

Certainly if it was as simple as Just believing that Jesus was the Christ and that God raised him from the dead, Paul would have already attained to the resurrection from the dead, wouldn't he? I mean he was going around teaching this stuff, but if to know Christ, and and the power of his resurrection was more than just to believe a story, but rather to know a deeper spiritual truth, I think this passage would make a lot more sense.

[Neon Genesis]

I thought that the writings which claimed the Gnostics were practicing ritual sex magic were just made up by the early church fathers to demonize the Gnostics? The early church fathers couldn't very well criticize the Gnostics for their actual moral principles because they were living stricter lives than the church fathers so they made up lies about how the Gnostics were engaged in sexual immorality to demonize them, sort of like how some Christians in today's times make up lies about how all atheists are immoral people with no moral standards and just want to live in sin. There's nothing in that text which indidicates Paul had any Gnostic leanings as far as I can tell. Paul says something similar in Romans where he says that just because you have faith in the resurrection doesn't mean that you can go around doing whatever you want, but that's not because of Gnostic teachings but because Paul also believed you have to live a moral life in addition to having faith yet faith in the resurrection was still important to Paul.

[Strappado]

I voted:

There was a historical Jesus. He was an ordinary man behind a mythology that warped and distorted him beyond all recognition.

[PandaPirate]

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.

 

Great response!

[PandaPirate]

The issue with Socrates is that it's not really important that he existed or not.

 

He's a lot like Confusius that way. It's their respective philosophy that's important, not that either man actually really existed as a real person. Either one could likely be a compilation of the writings of several people collected under a single name.

 

The issue here is that neither one makes any particularly extraordinary claims. The only claims made about them are just that they were 'wise dudes that said smart stuff and knew interesting people'. That's it.

 

Both are considered wise, but neither is the basis of a religion. Neither one is the basis of the lives of millions of people. It does not matter if they really existed. Either way, it does nothing to the value of their work.

 

Jesus is not the same thing. He -has- to have existed. He -has- to have been divine. Ne literally needs the extraordinary claims about him to be literally true, they have to be validated, or his 'work' is devalued considerably. He's a religious figure, and almost a third of the world's basis for their worldview and system of 'morality' on the basis of his existence.

 

It is important that he really existed. It's a requirement, otherwise everything about everyone that worships him is literally pointless.

 

If Socrates and Confusius didn't exist, their respective philosophy still exists, it's still just as valid. This is not the case with JC.

 

If JC didn't exist, he's not the Son of God, he's not the truth, or the light, and everyone who is spending their time devoting their entire lives to him is completely wasting their time.

 

If JC wasn't real billions have disregarded good advice because of him and his words. They've disregarded other wisdom, ignored good advice, and been led astray for nothing.

 

It's not that Jesus didn't say wise things. It's that people believe he was the wisest fucker ever, and that -all others should be ignored in favor of his word-. If there is a contradiction, no matter how wise the other person might be, JC wins by default. He's the son of God after all.

 

That's how it becomes a problem.

 

If he doesn't exist, then the suffering of billions throughout history was utterly pointless. It was a waste of life, and murder for the sake of fantasy, delusion, and insanity. It makes Jesus a psychosis rather than a savior or anything resembling a decent philosophy.

 

I seriously doubt very many people were tortured, murdered, raped, burned, or otherwise harmed for the sake of not following Confucius or Socrates philosophy, or for claiming that either one might not have been a real person.

 

The very core of Christianity, it's basis, and it's doctrines -require- that Jesus was real. It -requires- that at least some, most in fact, of the extraordinary supernatural claims be true. JC is not a philosopher, he's a demigod. Comparing claims his existence to claims of existence about Socrates or Confucius, or any other 'mortal' philosopher is apples to oranges.

 

Philosophers claim their words are good advice. Demigods claim their words are commands from higher beings. There's a very large difference here.

 

Socrates might not have a similar amount of evidence for his existence as JC, but it's still far more likely he was real. There are no extraordinary claims made about him, nothing abnormal or unusual about his existence. His claims are not extraordinary, and as such, do not require extraordinary evidence.

 

The same cannot be said for Jesus.

 

Half the people who belive Jesus existed don't follow any of his advice anyway, so what difference does it make?

[Riz]

I have trouble believing that the supposedly most influential man that ever lived only had 40-some lines written about him ever in human history (outside of the Bible which isn't a reliable source of anything, being nothing but a collection of stories/mythology over the years, corrupted and changed at best).

 

I do not believe there was ever a historical Jesus.

[Mongo]

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.

 

I've read enough of the thread and will use this as a jumping off point.

 

I voted that I was fairly confident that he was a historical person whose story got twisted by his followers.

 

I ask myself, which position is harder to defend, that Jesus was historical or that he never existed. I find the latter extremely unattractive. So much so unattractive I wonder whether the people who propose that he never ever existed are allowing their personal bias (against christianity) to taint their view. As open minded non-believers, that statement should cause us to consider the possibility rather than offend. This kind of openness is what led many of us out of the mind-trap of religion. Anyway...

 

The arguments that I find least desirable are:

-Jesus is a compilation of many myths.

I don't get how that happens. It does not jive with my understandign of human nature and the behaviour of crowds. Remember the timelines involved. They strike me as too short.

 

I do however can see how a historical figure, on whom a myth has started can then have new-comers to the group co-opt the original mythsters (couldn't resist making that up) and supplant the first iterations of the myth with a new myth that is a compilation of several others. Many people see a Pagan Jesus and that makes sense to me.

 

-The documents of the NT are completely irrelevant in establishing a historical Jesus

I don't get this argument in any sense.

 

They are without a doubt, highly suspect documents that we are unable to determine what parts are reliable. We know many parts that are not reliable. But irrelevant makes no sense to me.

 

Arguments or possibilities that I find more desirable

-Jesus was a minor figure who didn't warrant notation in the history books but had a following that, after his death, created and developed a myth based on Jesus.

Maybe Jesus wasn't his real name. Maybe he took that on to hide from the Romans, the Jews or to project an image as a Man of the People.

 

The idea that Jesus has some sort of human genesis makes alot of sense to me. Things don't suddenly appear without some sort of root. The idea that a human existed that was developed into the modern Jesus is more palatable to me.

 

-The Apostle Paul (or the human entity) was a key factor in creating the current myth

Remove Paul and you don't have much left other than a magic man.

 

-It is highly possible that original documents on the historical Jesus(and Muhammed) were destroyed by those defending the modern myth.

I understand that there is alot of proof of book burning, especially those of the Gnostics.

I doubt that any document that the contemporary believers could get a hold that contradicted their view of modern Jesus could not avoid being torched.

As well, those that were not supported by the leaders were not copied and likely lost to history

 

That's my understanding.

 

Mongo

 

 

[mwc]

The arguments that I find least desirable are:

-Jesus is a compilation of many myths.

I don't get how that happens. It does not jive with my understandign of human nature and the behaviour of crowds. Remember the timelines involved. They strike me as too short.

 

I do however can see how a historical figure, on whom a myth has started can then have new-comers to the group co-opt the original mythsters (couldn't resist making that up) and supplant the first iterations of the myth with a new myth that is a compilation of several others. Many people see a Pagan Jesus and that makes sense to me.

So you've created your own mythical "jesus" and that's the one that makes the most sense to you.

 

-The documents of the NT are completely irrelevant in establishing a historical Jesus

I don't get this argument in any sense.

 

They are without a doubt, highly suspect documents that we are unable to determine what parts are reliable. We know many parts that are not reliable. But irrelevant makes no sense to me.

How are you going to establish the reliability of those documents by using those documents?

 

Arguments or possibilities that I find more desirable

-Jesus was a minor figure who didn't warrant notation in the history books but had a following that, after his death, created and developed a myth based on Jesus.

Maybe Jesus wasn't his real name. Maybe he took that on to hide from the Romans, the Jews or to project an image as a Man of the People.

How could you know the real name of the person in the stories? It's never mentioned. Not once. It's all nomina sacra. Each and every time. In all the stories. In all the letters. In all the sects. So how are you deriving the name non-anachronistically?

 

The idea that Jesus has some sort of human genesis makes alot of sense to me. Things don't suddenly appear without some sort of root. The idea that a human existed that was developed into the modern Jesus is more palatable to me.

Tell me of Ebion.

 

-The Apostle Paul (or the human entity) was a key factor in creating the current myth

Remove Paul and you don't have much left other than a magic man.

Keep Paul and all you have is a magic man. Paul makes several statements of faith and then has his "jesus" up in the sky offering up revelations. Unless we all agree that "jesus" really did know of his betrayal beforehand and invent the last supper on the night he was betrayed. If yes then he was a powerful prophet that could see the future, or he was the ultimate manipulator of all people since he could get the powers that be to actually play right into his hand and kill an innocent man that was pretending to be the messiah. Or it's no and he didn't do any of this and Paul was repeating dogma knowing nothing of a real life "jesus" explaining away his other dogmatic statements as well leaving Paul with a magical sky-man and writ script.

 

-It is highly possible that original documents on the historical Jesus(and Muhammed) were destroyed by those defending the modern myth.

I understand that there is alot of proof of book burning, especially those of the Gnostics.

I doubt that any document that the contemporary believers could get a hold that contradicted their view of modern Jesus could not avoid being torched.

As well, those that were not supported by the leaders were not copied and likely lost to history

It's hard to argue from silence on this point since we would have to assume that there was something that contained an actual history of the "real" person that was this "jesus" and what we assume are the histories now really are not what they present themselves as. So we should expect that there was/is the possibility of finding the story of the "real jesus" that is almost identical to the current stories but leaves out all the parts that <some group> finds to be ahistorical. Then we declare that this is the actual "jesus" of history. Of course <some other group> will find this to not be the case and argue against <some group>. Instead arguing there is another "real" history just waiting out there and that will be the one that allows us to declare the "real jesus" but not this phony "real" history.

 

All the while none of them will concede that the whole thing may well be mythical. That the "real jesus" may have been a cobler named Frank and he went around mending shoes. He never healed anyone. He never spoke anything intelligent. He never fed anyone. Never walked on water unless puddles count. Never had disciples. And died from drinking bad water and got the squirts. But the author of the story saw him one day, going about his business, and it inspired his little story as sometimes happens with creative types. Would Frank be the "real jesus?" Sure. But not really. It's a myth.

 

mwc

[HRDWarrior]

My vote is that the jury is still out, and I am very convinced of that answer. Yes, there are some documents and writings that speak of someone, but there is yet to be a single official record (and from what I understand the Romans were some of the better record keepers of their day) providing external evidence of a historical, actual person/individual - or any true eye-witness accounts even. Therefore, the evidence in favor of a real person is slim at best, but there's no evidence to the contrary, either, so it's possible some person did exist who got turned into a lot more than he probably was. There have been enough humans throughout the life of the human race that statistically there probably was some dude that some of those stories got based off of - but I doubt the validity of most anything we currently have that supports the existence of the Biblical Jesus.

[oddbird1963]

. . . , so it's possible some person did exist who got turned into a lot more than he probably was.

 

 

I hope you don't mind if I use that phrase. It is short, pithy and it communicates well my position on the "historical Jesus."

 

It should be the fourth "L" of the typical apologist multiple choice question:

 

"Lunatic? Liar? Lord? Lot more than he probably was?"

 

I choose number four!

[nightcomeson]

Other.

 

Specifically, an adaptation of Ehrman's and Schweitzer's theses. Jesus was deluded, but unlike the choice above he did not think of himself as God, but rather the eschatological prophet and the axis of a new age. Even the resurrection accounts would not have made him God, but rather God's Messiah, the new king of the Jews...which got played up a lot as time went on.

[HRDWarrior]

. . . , so it's possible some person did exist who got turned into a lot more than he probably was.

 

 

I hope you don't mind if I use that phrase. It is short, pithy and it communicates well my position on the "historical Jesus."

 

It should be the fourth "L" of the typical apologist multiple choice question:

 

"Lunatic? Liar? Lord? Lot more than he probably was?"

 

I choose number four!

 

Feel free - use away!

[Azrael]

The documents of the NT are completely irrelevant in establishing a historical Jesus

I don't get this argument in any sense.

 

Forgive me but how do you figure that? The NT was suppose to be about him and his life written by authors that never even knew him to start with. There is no contemporary historian during the time he lived that even makes mention of a super human God man. Oh sure, Christians are quick to point to the TF by Josepheus but even that has been coined an interpolation done by the so called great church father Euseibus. Jesus was a pretty common name in those days and not one who is mentioned even fits the profile of the Christian God man. It could have very well been a counter by early christianity to counter the Jewish Joseph Ben Pendira.