Did Jesus actually exist as a historical figure?

[leibowde84]

Nobody that wrote about Jesus actually met the guy.

I know. So, why is the Gospel even considered as pretending to be historically accurate. At the very best, it's hearsay. Just listen to Serial and you will realize how unreliable even first-hand accounts are ... then think that these stories were written down a whole generation after the events took place by people who didn't witness them. Far-fetched is an understatement.

 

[steeltoes]

I know. So, why is the Gospel even considered as pretending to be historically accurate. At the very best, it's hearsay. Just listen to Serial and you will realize how unreliable even first-hand accounts are ... then think that these stories were written down a whole generation after the events took place by people who didn't witness them. Far-fetched is an understatement.

"So, why is the Gospel even considered as pretending to be historically accurate.," is the $64,000.00 question. As far as I can tell some people look to The Bible for the truth in many forms, history being only one of them, and the most curious of them all considering the nature of the stories.

 

[outhouse]

So, why is the Gospel even considered as pretending to be historically accurate.

Its not.

Only uneducated apologist tend to think the books of theology are historically accurate.

And only the uneducated think the books are absent of historical events.

. At the very best, it's hearsay.

Yes. Copies of copies of hearsay.

then think that these stories were written down a whole generation after the events took place by people who didn't witness them

Wrong.

A decade and half later Paul writes. And he speaks about other existing traditions already in place all over the Diaspora.

. Far-fetched is an understatement.

As written yes it is. But that is not what historians are proposing.

They state that a martyred man died, and theology and mythology generated after his death.

There is no credible or logical hypothesis that explains the hearsay evidence we have.

And remember people will or can actually hang on hearsay alone. It is credible evidence in a court of law.

 

[oldbadger]

You don't place him a within living memory, AND place him on stage of the largest rock concert in front of half a million people and claim he was the star of the show.

........... your figure used to be 400,000. Are they having kids or something?
.......and you place him in front of 1/2 million people. Where was this, then?
Where did 400,000 watch Jesus?

 

[oldbadger]

I know. So, why is the Gospel even considered as pretending to be historically accurate. At the very best, it's hearsay.

Hi again....
Galilean peasant 'hearsay' was the method of passing down histories. Sure, people do embellish their stories, and the bad get worse while the good get better, etc.
But Oral tradition can be judged to some extent by its content, and G-Mark, once thinned of its evangelical additions reads pretty well.
[/QUOTE] Far-fetched is an understatement.[/QUOTE]
Much of G-Mark is defendable..... supportable. imo

I reckon that Jesus did actually do most of the 'things' in G-Mark. His failures as a promoter of change were more frequent than his successes....... so G-Mark is hardly propaganda.
He picked up a dropped mission.
He failed completely in Galilee.
He made a last attempt in Jerusalem, hoping for support.
He didn't get the support.
He was arrested, tried and convicted.
He was let down by his own....
This is hardly a successful hero bull story.....?

 

[outhouse]

your figure used to be 400,000.

E.P.Sanders made this claim.

Are they having kids or something?

Josephus places double what E.P. Sanders has.

That and 400000 is pretty close to half a million people. Your splitting hairs at this point.

.......and you place him in front of 1/2 million people. Where was this, then?

At Passover.

Where did 400,000 watch Jesus?

The crucified people it entrance/exit ways to set an example of what not to do.

This would have also been the talk of the event as people would have also witnessed a disturbance.

Disturbances scared the hell out of people at Passover as they knew people could be trampled and or the Romans policing the event would come in just hacking everyone into pieces.

This was not some minor disturbance, and it generated theology and mythology surrounding the martyrdom posits it was a known event that people kept talking about every year at Passover.

 

[outhouse]

Much of G-Mark is defendable..... supportable. imo

It is not.

You fit squarely into the apologetic circle who carries no credibility in this matter, and you go against academia on this topic in favor of your fanaticism.

 

[oldbadger]

The crucified people it entrance/exit ways to set an example of what not to do.

So would you like to propose which entrance way Jesus was crucified at?
Inside or outside?

This would have also been the talk of the event as people would have also witnessed a disturbance.

There was a riot! And Jesus's demonstration was probably minor, compared to that.
Jesus did get spoken about, but I wonder if it was just that Jesus that made the headlines.
The movements which arose after that Feast might well have been inspired by a more fierce character.
Christianity might have initially been about rebellion against the Jewish upper classes and priesthood.

Disturbances scared the hell out of people at Passover as they knew people could be trampled and or the Romans policing the event would come in just hacking everyone into pieces.

Not disturbances...... full blown riots, as mentioned in G-Mark.

This was not some minor disturbance, and it generated theology and mythology surrounding the martyrdom posits it was a known event that people kept talking about every year at Passover.

Yes, it was......... compared to other insurgents killing folks in a riot.
I don't doubt that JofN was mentioned in the list of excitements, but the band of brigands...... Wow.

 

[oldbadger]

It is not.

You fit squarely into the apologetic circle who carries no credibility in this matter,

...... defending what? My opinion is individual....... it attracts itself to no groups at all.

and you go against academia on this topic in favor of your fanaticism.

We are both fanatics......... it's just that my enthusiasm leads to differing proposals than yours.
And, yes, I follow my own paths on this subject.
You don't seem to closely follow too many academics yourself. ??

You can punch holes in the other books, but G-Mark?...... I don't think so. And please don't vomit the evangelical addition...... I've covered that many times.

 

[ruselwilliams]

There are other factors to consider here, for instance ["Jesus of Nazareth" as Nazareth did not exist until the 3rd Century. Which was well after Justin Martyr died, so it was impossible he ever mentioned "Nazareth" but more likely a lying scribe adding things later on. In what book did Justin Martyr write and on what page, does the above quote appear? Or do we a have a new Watergate history of early Christians? I have never heard of it before and I had thought I had read most of his stuff.[See Acts of Justin, dialogues....]

There are numerous deceptions going on for the last 1700 years........ on which I will only give a few books of reference:
1. Catholic Encyclopedia i, 225-226
2.Ibid
3. When were our Gospels written by Prof.C. Tishendorf.
4. Book of the Roman Catholic Church by Charles Butler, 8 vols page 664.
5.Ecclessiastical History, vii Sozoman
6.Home's Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the holy Scriptures, Vol, 1 page 633, Fith Edition 1825
7.History, Gibbon, Chapter 37, Lardner, iv,p,91 Diegesis, page 272.
8. catholic encyclopedia vii, page 645-6
9. Christian Forgeries Major J. Wheless
.....It goes on and on

Justin Martyr was a mid second century Presbyter whose writing I may add never referred to any of our four Gospels or one single incident in them. He has recorded some 314 quotes from the Old Testament....... but some how Justin became the rallying point as the first polemical author on Christianity.

The Apostle Paul a contemporary of Jesus never ever said he met Christ once; even though he moved around the same Temple complex at the same time. The Apostle Paul said he only knew Christ according to the Old Testament Scripture accounts.....his death, entombment and resurrection.Is that not amazing! How blind and deaf have we become! And this Apostle is the foremost author of the New Testament!

Yes, Paul went further and said "even IF we had know Christ according to the flesh, henceforth we know Him no longer." Further Paul said He also "appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh" "found in likeness of a man".
Paul spoke of Christ as "appearing" even when it came to others, like the apostles and in the same way to Paul a super natural appearance. These are not truths for man's natural carnal mind.

The Apostle John was specific, very specific "in Him was life; and the life was the light of man. And the light shines in the darkness; and the darkness did not comprehend it." That is the ultimate statement: "the Word had become flesh" but to do that involved the 'kenosis' the total emptying out..... but none perceived it....nor could they being in darkness for the flesh veiled the light. "Spirit wars against the flesh, the flesh against the Spirit." Humility is not the nature of flesh.

So when Peter answered Christ saying: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God God." Christ responded and said: " Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you" clearly "flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of God" nor manifest God. "God manifest in flesh" is an incorrect translation, blatantly so and mischievous.

It was the carnal man that sees in the resurrection Christ having a body of flesh and bone..."as ye see Me having" and to this unbelief and blindness He responded in kind after going through closed doors.

At times they recognised Him through "the eyes of their heart", but even Peter at the end denies Him to a mere servant girl! And we Christians today think we are so superior to a a leading Apostle! These stories are all for our recognition in our own life, not in historical characters!

There is a big difference between "being found in form" or "in appearance of a man" than the actuality. When John spoke of " Christ come in the flesh" it was present tense not the past. A flesh and blood body cannot dwell in us as "Christ in you" but the "spirit of His Son, into our heart crying Abba Father"...yes!

This catholic conspiracy of an historical Christ as flesh and blood is to keep Christ forever out of human existence, upstairs and out of sight. So Popes, bishops, pastors can take over your body and control even your thoughts. A man in the glory...the Mind of Christ....they're out of business! They cannot sell you one book, for you then have the real thing blazing inside you! The Shekinah Glory!


There may have been an historical person called 'Yeshua' a common Aramaic name or 'Yehowshua' in Hebrew certainly not "Jesus" a latin name meaning son of a swine "Je" of/son and "sus" swine in latin.... the Greek "Iesous" very similiar phonetically to of ' Zeus.'


No way Hebrew parents called their son "Jesus." There was no "J" even in the English alphabet until after the 14th Century.The only name we can be saved by has been changed....by Rome! I wonder why?

 

[outhouse]

No way Hebrew parents called their son "Jesus." There was no "J" even in the English alphabet until after the 14th Century.The only name we can be saved by has been changed....by Rome! I wonder why?

You don't have a clue do you?

In Hebrew his name might have been Yeshua, but his parents did not speak Hebrew, they spoke Aramaic. They called him Isho.

Nazareth did not exist until the 3rd Century

wrong

Cant make this up folks. Another Salm refugee

 

[Pantherx]

The only way to accept a literal account of the bible is to believe in the impossible, that is, Jesus Christ was Virgin born and was resurrected from the dead, he walked on water and raised a dead Lazarus or fed five thousand on a single piece of bread. Yet not a single ancient historian or observer other than the biblical authors left a concise account of any of these supernatural events. To accept Jesus is to lay aside ones rationality and accept a God that needs to suspend the laws of nature for one special planet. I believe in the intelligent god of a billion universes, and over a trillion planets which seems a hundred times more miraculous than accepting a literal interpretation of the bible.

The symbolism and motifs used in mythology and the bible was a common feature in many ancient religions thousands of years before Christianity. Just take one example, the “Virgin Birth” concept. There are quite a number of virgin born or twice born deities, such as Krishna, Horus, Mithra, Perseus, Athena, Isis, Neith, Iris, Aphrodite, Dionysus and Attis. The point here is that the “Virgin Birth” cannot be taken literally; it was a poetic metaphor that related to sexual purity and chastity, which the Sages thought was necessary for a spiritual transformation. They used poetic terms and parables to illuminate their philosophy so the average person would remember its essential character. This allegorical explanation, if applied to the bible and mythology allows the texts to be understood as a narrative alluding to spiritual advancement.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The real problem is most Christians are to lazy or just so bigoted they refuse to even consider such a topic full stop! .

"Most Christians? Speaking of being "to lazy (sic!) or just so bigoted" …

 

[Bunyip]

And not one person ever claimed he did not exist, who lived when the books and traditions were being written about him. Not even his enemies, nor the movements enemies.


When you create a mythical character, you place him 500 ish years in the past. Similar to Noah, Abraham and Moses.

You don't place him a within living memory, AND place him on stage of the largest rock concert in front of half a million people and claim he was the star of the show.

And then still don't have a single person claim he was not there headlining the show.

Ermm.......major logic fail there mate. We have no contemporary witness accounts of Thor, Santa or sheeesh - any ancient figure not existing. There are no such things as records of non births. Sure - there were no reports of stuff not happening.

Take the 500 000 witnesses you claim - you have not actually got a single such eye witness report of any event in the life of Jesus. You have a STORY about an event that claims there were 500 000 people there - what you DO NOT have is 500 000 actual eye witness accounts. In fact you have zero.
You then attempt to argue that because your opponent has no eye witness accounts reporting that the event did not occur - then for some reason your zero eye witness accounts that it did occur are proven. It is just illogical nonsense.

 

[psychoslice]

I feel that Jesus must die so as we can grow in spirit, clinging to the story of Jesus will never allow us to mature in spirit, Jesus himself had to die to become the living Christ, we also need to die, that is to our carnal self, so as to become our true self, the Christ.

 

[maxfreakout]

these threads on the topic of Jesus' historicity never actually progress anywhere they are all just perpetual stalemate.

It all ultimately comes down to the fact that nobody *knows* with any degree of certainty whether or not Jesus existed as a single historical person, so all that we are really discussing is what we *believe* which is entirely independent of the actual existence of nonexistence of Jesus.

Some people believe that Jesus was a historical person, some people do not believe that Jesus was a historical person, that is the only possible conclusion of this discussion no matter how many times it appears.

 

[Bunyip]

these threads on the topic of Jesus' historicity never actually progress anywhere they are all just perpetual stalemate.

It all ultimately comes down to the fact that nobody *knows* with any degree of certainty whether or not Jesus existed as a single historical person, so all that we are really discussing is what we *believe* which is entirely independent of the actual existence of nonexistence of Jesus.

Some people believe that Jesus was a historical person, some people do not believe that Jesus was a historical person, that is the only possible conclusion of this discussion no matter how many times it appears.

That there is a conclusion at all is what is being contested. That Jesus was historical is indeed a belief. That his historicity is not conclusive is the default, it is the alternate proposition. More than any suggestion that his not being historical could be known - which is the common strawman.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I reckon that Jesus did actually do most of the 'things' in G-Mark.

And you 'reckon' this based on what exactly?

 

[ruselwilliams]

We will never come to a conclusion here, it is a battle of egos.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We will never come to a conclusion here, it is a battle of egos.

I can't tell if that was a sloppy non sequitur, projection, or both.