Did Jesus actually exist as a historical figure?

[Jayhawker Soule]

If we would be debating 'Paul and Christianity', then prosopography would be 'nice', but the mission of a single figure?

 

[oldbadger]

 

[psychoslice]

I don't think Jesus actually exist as a historical figure, and I don't think he was ever meant to be a historical figure, if you need Jesus to be a historical figure then your missing the whole point of the mythology of Jesus. Jesus was a symbol of our true inner nature, the Christ, he personified the inner Christ, making it more easy for those who were not ready to be enlightened. This is why he also talked in parables and metaphors, those listening were at different stages of consciousness, those who were at the level of the Christ consciousness understood just what he was saying, they also become the Christ that walked on the earth, these are also the ones who see the second coming, for when they were a child they were already the Christ child, but through conditioning and programming they lost their innocents, they were cast out of their home, but now they have returned, hence the second coming,.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't think Jesus actually exist as a historical figure, and I don't think he was ever meant to be a historical figure, if you need Jesus to be a historical figure then your missing the whole point of the mythology of Jesus. Jesus was a symbol of our true inner nature, the Christ, he personified the inner Christ, making it more easy for those who were not ready to be enlightened. This is why he also talked in parables and metaphors, those listening were at different stages of consciousness, those who were at the level of the Christ consciousness understood just what he was saying, they also become the Christ that walked on the earth, these are also the ones who see the second coming, for when they were a child they were already the Christ child, but through conditioning and programming they lost their innocents, they were cast out of their home, but now they have returned, hence the second coming,.

I reckon that the above is true.......... about the Pauline Christ. But he snatched his blinding idea from the following of Jesus......... probably a real bloke.

 

[steeltoes]

Lordy....... but this is fun....... just like the old threads
You're losing your touch. HJ researchers are very often not Christians.
You've definitely lost the plot...........!!
You're mixing some of us up with religious folks.

See? Your agenda has set solid and trapped you into a weak position. You can't win anything like that.

Win? Is there a prize to be won?

 

[gnostic]

Unless there are archeological evidences to support the historical records, then there are no definitive way to prove what were written.

History, like those written by Josephus and Tacitus, while their works are very important "historically", are not facts.

From literary view, all written works are literary evidences, whether they be historical, religious or mythological - in theme. All of them are dependence on contexts. And while historical records may possibly be indeed factual, they are only historical, only if you have something more tangible than the written words.

History are not fact. They are about contexts. What are these "historical" contexts? Who was it written by? Who was it written for? Why was it written? What were their sources?

History, especially written narratives, like that of Herodotus, Thucydides, Tacitus, Josephus, etc, were all written with certain point-of-view, just like the Genesis, Exodus, gospels, Acts, Paul's epistles, etc. and such views could be biased.

Facts, on the other hand, are evidences that are historical or archaeological evidences that can collaborate or support the literary evidences. Historical facts are something that can confirm the written records.

Tacitus only wrote about there being "Christians" around, and only record about the existence of such group "exist", but this in no way prove that Jesus exist, let alone being Jesus being "historical".

Josephus wrote about James being the brother of Jesus, may possibly be evidence that Jesus is "historical", but does not in any way collaborate to what the gospel authors and letter writers in the New Testament to be "true". Josephus doesn't write anything else about Jesus, like where or when he was born or how he die, or what Jesus did with his life, etc.

Actual evidences (other than the written ones) would be like commissioning the treasury to have coins minted with your name and image on it, have bust or full sculpture of you to portray image of you, or your name and the names of your parents printed in the Roman census, or the bronze plaque that say you have become Roman citizen - all done in the time you was alive. Any of these would prove more or less that you are not mythological.

There are more evidences to Gaius Julius Caesar than there are for Jesus. Caesar did have coins minted, while he was in power. He does have a bust of him that show what he look like. Caesar also have commissioned public buildings when he was younger as an aedile and when he was older as a dictator. Not only did Caesar write his own memoirs about his wars in Gaul and against his enemies, his contemporary supporters as well as his enemies wrote about him, further collaborating his existences as being "historical". And then there is cursus honorum, which publicly listed the offices (praetorship, consulate, dictatorship, etc) he held.

The same can't be said about Jesus. All we have are number of gospels, that are highly subjective, with no way to prove what he did - to be true, written by unknown people who may have not met Jesus or witnessed his teachings and miracles first hand, and a reference to Jesus being James' brother that doesn't collaborate what the gospels say, except his kinship with James. But these are not evidences to what Jesus did with his life.

 

[Skwim]

Unless there are archeological evidences to support the historical records, then there are no definitive way to prove what were written.

Just what kind of archeological evidences would be acceptable?

History, like those written by Josephus and Tacitus, while their works are very important "historically", are not facts.

So, what work would constitute a fact?

Facts, on the other hand, are evidences that are historical or archaeological evidences that can collaborate or support the literary evidences. Historical facts are something that can confirm the written records.

Again, what kind of evidences would you accept that can corroborate (I assume this is what you meant to say) the literary evidences?

Tacitus only wrote about there being "Christians" around, and only record about the existence of such group "exist", but this in no way prove that Jesus exist, let alone being Jesus being "historical".

Aside from proof only being relevant in mathematics, logic, and alcohol, just what are you looking for?

From The Annals (Tacitus)/book 15, # 44

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

Appears to me that Tacitus does indeed reference Jesus.

There are more evidences to Gaius Julius Caesar than there are for Jesus. Caesar did have coins minted, while he was in power. He does have a bust of him that show what he look like. Caesar also have commissioned public buildings when he was younger as an aedile and when he was older as a dictator. Not only did Caesar write his own memoirs about his wars in Gaul and against his enemies, his contemporary supporters as well as his enemies wrote about him, further collaborating his existences as being "historical". And then there is cursus honorum, which publicly listed the offices (praetorship, consulate, dictatorship, etc) he held.

The same can't be said about Jesus. All we have are number of gospels, that are highly subjective, with no way to prove what he did - to be true, written by unknown people who may have not met Jesus or witnessed his teachings and miracles first hand, and a reference to Jesus being James' brother that doesn't collaborate what the gospels say, except his kinship with James.

Yup. the evidence is not as compelling.

 

[psychoslice]

I reckon that the above is true.......... about the Pauline Christ. But he snatched his blinding idea from the following of Jesus......... probably a real bloke.

Its nothing to do with snatching, we all should take the story of the Christ as our own, after all its up to each one of us to be self realized, it doesn't matter how you achieve that, Jesus had his way, the Buddha had his, and you and I should have our own story.

 

[gnostic]

Aside from proof only being relevant in mathematics, logic, and alcohol, just what are you looking for?

From The Annals (Tacitus)/book 15, # 44

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Appears to me that Tacitus does indeed reference Jesus.

Ok, you're right, Tacitus does mention Christ, hence Jesus, but it doesn't really give us much in term of details of what Pilate did to Jesus, etc, just like Josephus' reference. Both don't tell us anything about Jesus.

Just what kind of archeological evidences would be acceptable?

So, what work would constitute a fact?

Again, what kind of evidences would you accept that can corroborate (I assume this is what you meant to say) the literary evidences?

Yup. the evidence is not as compelling.

You have to go all the way the last part of my reply about Caesar, to get what I mean by valid or verifiable evidences. Sorry, that's the way I write. Annoying writing style, isn't it?

 

[outhouse]

The strongest evidence, is the hypothesis that explains the evidence we do have.

There is only one credible hypothesis ATM

 

[Vishvavajra]

What would we do without biblical scholars telling us that The Bible stories have historical merit? We'd be left believing that we are reading fiction, and then where would we be? Oh my, what a dilemma we would all be in for not believing that Jesus was a really truly old human being that really walked the earth like the story says. Thank goodness for biblical scholars that save us from ourselves.

You're being sarcastic, but a lot of them do seem to think that way. The irony is that they're disrespecting Jesus and his legacy by insisting that it's all worthless unless we can somehow demonstrate that it's all factually accurate (which will never happen). They obviously don't think his teachings and mythic presence can stand on their own. They have no faith in people's ability to find meaning in things beyond the literal and the factual. And frankly, if people reject everything that's not 100% literal as being of no value, then there's no saving them from that in any case. Proving Jesus's historicity isn't going to make them stop being overly literal-minded people with no depth to speak of. If anything, it would just feed the problem (as it appears to have done in fundamentalist circles).

An interesting parallel is Shakyamuni Buddha, the founder of Buddhism. We can say even less about him in historical terms than we can say about Jesus, not least because he would have lived around half a millennium earlier and there was a gap of several centuries between his time and the time when Buddhists first started writing down the oral teachings and stories of his life. So again we're looking at a highly mythologized character about whom we can say little or nothing for certain. It's very likely that the mythic Buddha is based on someone real who who taught in northern India some 2500 years ago, since we know there were a bunch of guys doing more or less what he did at the time. But at the same time, compared to Jesus, it's easier to suggest that the Buddha is entirely mythical and never actually existed. Buddhists still treat him as a fellow who existed, since the stories about him and his accomplishments are instructive, but the idea that he might not have factually existed doesn't really bother people, since the teachings stand on their own and are known to be efficacious.

But it probably helps that Buddhists are basically forced to become comfortable with not taking things literally. Some scriptures pretty much dare the reader to do so and will break your brain if you try it.

 

[oldbadger]

Its nothing to do with snatching, we all should take the story of the Christ as our own, after all its up to each one of us to be self realized, it doesn't matter how you achieve that, Jesus had his way, the Buddha had his, and you and I should have our own story.

.......... I agreed with your premise, if you meant that Christ is not historical, but I think that Jesus of Nazareth probably was historical.
And, 'yes', I think that Saul, who was contracted by some authority (priesthood?) to put down groups of Christians probably did realise (on the road to Damascas) how this could be spun into a most powerful social manipulator...... Jesus become Christ. So I used the term 'snatched'..... it was no big deal.....
That's all.
If you don't believe that Jesus the carpenter and healer really lived ..... and just want to repeat that point every now and then, on an HJ thread...... fair enough.

 

[oldbadger]

Just what kind of archeological evidences would be acceptable?

....acceptable to whom?
Do you ever watch the BBC program 'Time-Team'? I watched an episode this week, where a large rectangular fortress with 5 meter wide and 3 meter high walls was researched intensively over three full days by several specialised teams. At the end ...... all they had to show the viewers was a tiny sample vial containing a few seeds that had been recovered from under a section of wall which they had excavated.
No Geo Phys evidence...... nothing to tell them exactly who built the fort or when.
But the experts thought that it had to be 'dark ages' in origin....... that was it.
Pro-Archaeologists don't try to make or break anything in their work, they just search for whatever can be found.

Yup. the evidence is not as compelling.

Evidence for what?
Can you accept the concept that Jesus was a real person whose short mission, possibly mixed up with some stories of other people, was picked up and used by people like Saul/Paul?
The evidence is indirect, secondary and tertiary, so why don't you come down and look for ideas with us, rather than stand around murmuring 'Nah....... nuffin' here!' ?
We could do with your knowledge.........

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Religious beliefs/experiences aside, I used to be a Jesus mythicist until I realize that no one has really postulated a theory of how Christianity arose without a founder that wasn't merely a conspiracy theory or guesswork.

 

[Skwim]

....acceptable to whom?

RF member gnostic

Evidence for what?

The existence of Jesus.

 

[oldbadger]

Questions:-
How about focusing upon the two condemned men who were crucified with Jesus?
Mark 15-27. 'They also crucified two bandits with Jesus,.................'
Bandits? Really? After various riots and uprisings? Look at what had been going on at that time....
Mark 15-7. ............ Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder in the riot.'
Was 'the riot' connected in any way to what happened at the Temple......... either on the second day (of Jesus's visit) or the third?

Day one of Jesus's visit...... Mark 11.11 Jesus entered Jerusalem, went into the Temple, and looked around at everything.' Then he left the city.
Day two of Jesus's visit ....... Mar 11.15 ........ Jesus went to the Temple and began to drive out all those who were buying and selling............................. 11.16 and he would not let anyone carry anything through the temple courtyards.
Day three (!!!) of Jesus's visit....... Mark 11.27 'They arrived once again in Jerusalem. As Jesus was walking in the Temple,the chief priests.............. asked him........ 'What right have you to do these things?'.
Was Jesus picketing again on day three? It looks as if 'somebody' was.

But the Romans must have been (by any comparison) a most competent organisation, and with Roman guards on the Temple walls, and Temple guards within, would Jesus have been allowed to leave after his first demo?
Was one of these disruptions caused by Jesus Barabbas and his 'bandits'?

Was the 'following' that gathered pace afterwards a cocktail of stories, some about J of Nazareth and some about J Barabbas? If we could separate these two, and any mixture of their stories, could we find an aggressive insurrectionist and a mild 'magic for meal' or 'heal for meal' peasant......... who may have been tangled up in the Jerusalem mess and in fact reprieved (and exiled) by Pilot who considered him to be no danger?

Were the bandits on the crosses ..... comrades of Barabbas........ ?

Questions.......

 

[oldbadger]

RF member gnostic
The existence of Jesus.

Well, you answered two of my questions....... that was nice.
How about just one of the others? :-

Old-B: Can you accept the concept that Jesus was a real person whose short mission, possibly mixed up with some stories of other people, was picked up and used by people like Saul/Paul?

 

[psychoslice]

.......... I agreed with your premise, if you meant that Christ is not historical, but I think that Jesus of Nazareth probably was historical.
And, 'yes', I think that Saul, who was contracted by some authority (priesthood?) to put down groups of Christians probably did realise (on the road to Damascas) how this could be spun into a most powerful social manipulator...... Jesus become Christ. So I used the term 'snatched'..... it was no big deal.....
That's all.
If you don't believe that Jesus the carpenter and healer really lived ..... and just want to repeat that point every now and then, on an HJ thread...... fair enough.

Yes he certainly didn't exist, but that means nothing to me, its the metaphor that I am interested in.

 

[steeltoes]

Religious beliefs/experiences aside, I used to be a Jesus mythicist until I realize that no one has really postulated a theory of how Christianity arose without a founder that wasn't merely a conspiracy theory or guesswork.

How a Fictional Jesus Gave Rise to Christianity

There, now you have a theory that is not merely a conspiracy theory or guesswork.

 

[steeltoes]

You're being sarcastic, but a lot of them do seem to think that way. The irony is that they're disrespecting Jesus and his legacy by insisting that it's all worthless unless we can somehow demonstrate that it's all factually accurate (which will never happen). They obviously don't think his teachings and mythic presence can stand on their own. They have no faith in people's ability to find meaning in things beyond the literal and the factual. And frankly, if people reject everything that's not 100% literal as being of no value, then there's no saving them from that in any case. Proving Jesus's historicity isn't going to make them stop being overly literal-minded people with no depth to speak of. If anything, it would just feed the problem (as it appears to have done in fundamentalist circles).

.

Agreed, too many literal minded people spoil an otherwise good read.