Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[YoursTrue]

I'll give you a little experiment I did about a decade ago.

Go through Gensis and note Adam and all his descendants with the number of years recorded that they lived. Add 3 zeros to each age to hypothesize a year BCE. Setting Abraham to the far right with the year 3600 BCE, "graph" the others in a timeline to the left, listing each name, Noah back to Adam. (I can't remember how Noah's descendants worked in this.)

Now, check the paleontologist estimations on the earliest humanoids, and their time-periods and estimated length of existence. Compare it to your graph.

No, not perfect. But very interesting, especially when you see the over-laps. And it was fun to do. I really need to dig out my old laptop and see if I can find my graph. LOL

OK. You have to make that clearer, like what do you mean to hypothesize a year BCE?

 

[Ebionite]

But, given all our best scholarship and available evidence, the overwhelming scholarly consensus matches the overwhelming body of evidence: Jesus of Nazareth was very probably a real historical person, albeit without the healing powers and divine nature and all that.

His divine nature was implied by prophecy.

I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth.
Numbers 24:17

As symbols the star and sceptre are part of Michael Molnar's astrological solution for the star of Bethlehem. Molnar's solution describes a pair of lunar occultations of a star since in the historical context of the Bible there was no distinction between a star and a planet.

The Magi's star is proposed to have been a pair of auspicious lunar occultations of Jupiter that signified to ancient astrologers the birth of a king.
The Magi's Star from the Perspective of Ancient Astrological Practices, Molnar, M. R.

Matthew reports that the Star tells the astrologers about the date, place, character, and future of the birth of a child. That is, the Star tells the astrologers about the birth of a very great king to be born in Judea on some date, and that is exactly what a natal horoscope gives. It seems to be past coincidence that the Star in Matthew tells the ancient astrologers exactly what a natal horoscope tells to ancient astrologers
Astronomical and Historical Evaluation of Molnar's Solution, Bradley E. Schaefer

 

[Spice]

OK. You have to make that clearer, like what do you mean to hypothesize a year BCE?

The first currently known humanoid, Homo Erectus, per current data, is set to have existed in approximately 2,500,000 BCE. We don't know, or I don't, how a year was measured when the oral traditions were put down on parchment that eventually became the book of Genesis. Nor can we expect the information to be accurate. However, if you make the hypothetical assumption that Adam represents Homo Erectus, and he (they) lived for 930,000 years, and chart Adam's descendants along with later known human species, working up to Noah being the father of Homo Sapiens, it makes for an interesting research project. Genesis states that man's years are numbered at 120 after Noah. This holds true.

 

[YoursTrue]

The first currently known humanoid, Homo Erectus, per current data, is set to have existed in approximately 2,500,000 BCE. We don't know, or I don't, how a year was measured when the oral traditions were put down on parchment that eventually became the book of Genesis. Nor can we expect the information to be accurate. However, if you make the hypothetical assumption that Adam represents Homo Erectus, and he (they) lived for 930,000 years, and chart Adam's descendants along with later known human species, working up to Noah being the father of Homo Sapiens, it makes for an interesting research project. Genesis states that man's years are numbered at 120 after Noah. This holds true.

Sorry, it's too complicated for me. Maybe I'm reading it over too quickly. can't figure how you can figure they (homo erectus?) lived 930,000 years. Sorry it's a bit too complicated and abstruse for me. but thanks anyway for trying.

 

[Heyo]

I'll give you a little experiment I did about a decade ago.

Go through Gensis and note Adam and all his descendants with the number of years recorded that they lived. Add 3 zeros to each age to hypothesize a year BCE. Setting Abraham to the far right with the year 3600 BCE, "graph" the others in a timeline to the left, listing each name, Noah back to Adam. (I can't remember how Noah's descendants worked in this.)

Now, check the paleontologist estimations on the earliest humanoids, and their time-periods and estimated length of existence. Compare it to your graph.

No, not perfect. But very interesting, especially when you see the over-laps. And it was fun to do. I really need to dig out my old laptop and see if I can find my graph. LOL

Try another experiment: assume that "years" really meant "months". After all, the Hebrews had a lunar calendar. 900 "years" become 73, a reasonable age for a human. There are still some inconsistencies, like most of them becoming parents at around "100" = 8 years, so we have to assume something like people only starting to count the age from a time on when they were about 4, but there is something similar in primitive tribes who only name their children once they are about that age.

 

[Heyo]

So you are saying these disciples, as well as others, spend three years with Jesus and just “thought” they saw Him do miracles like; feeding thousands of men, women and children with a few fish and loaves of bread, turn water to wine, heal lepers, the lame, the blind, and more, bring dead people back to life, then they thought they watched Him die by crucifixion, rise from the grave, and imagined they spent time talking, eating and interacting with Him afterwards.

Sure people can die and suffer for deeply held beliefs, but I highly doubt anyone would do so for fake beliefs, lies, and things that they know did not happen.

How many of the people you think spend time with Jesus did write the Gospels and suffered for their beliefs? Yep, none. There is exactly one person who is said to have known Jesus and has written something at all, Simon. Everything else is hearsay.

 

[Heyo]

None of this is exactly a smoking gun, but I think it's more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus who the myths were glommed onto.

I agree that Jesus is most probably a legend, not a myth, even though Dr. Carrier, a historian, is a Jesus mythicist. He has some good arguments, but for his hypothesis to work, there would have to have been a conspiracy, at least between Paul and Peter, and I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

 

[Heyo]

Well the options here are, right, that either there was no such person, or there was such a person and the things people said about them turned out to be false. The more we look at the textual evidence, the harder it is to aoid the conclusion that there was a man named Jesus, who hda some fanatical followers who said things about him that were false. It does indeed look like there was just such a person, and that they had such followers. Its more complicated than you're making out to being. Was there any person corresponding to the strongest, most miracle-filled accounts handed out by partisans to win converts? Well, no. That person never existed. Or, another equally valid way of looking at it would be to say that the person existed, but people said a bunch of false stuff about them.

To make it just a bit more complicated, there could have been multiple people on whom the legend is based. Jesus wasn't a rare name at the time (though it hasn't had to be a Jesus). Apocalyptic preacher also weren't unusual.
Anyway, it is hard to separate the truth from the fiction, and there are more questionable statements than factual ones. The list of most likely true facts is very short and the intersecting set with the list of religiously relevant "facts" is empty.

 

[joelr]

As is said to be the case with myths -- there is usually some grain of truth somewhere in the mix. Was there a man behind the legend .. "The man, The Myth, The Legend"

Critical Scholarship says yes -- Bart Ehrman for Example will say that in all likelihood this Jesus person existed .. now whether the stories we have currently is an accurate representation of the fellow .. that is an entirely separate question. There were many "Messiah's" around the first century .. the Jews were a going concern .. having a temple .. the Hasmonean dynasty ---or what ever that was called .. Ths was a messianic time .. and Jews wanted more control over their state .. move towards the Glory days .. Strong Messianic Leaders ahd many run-ins with the Romans .. who ended up biting back .. destroying the Temple ---throwing all the Jews out of Jerusalem .. converted into a Pagan Holy Site..

Some Jewish Holy man .. talking in apocalyptic tones .. garnering a following --- round the same time of major political intrigue .. the Jews on a path of full out revolt against the Roman Empire ..the time of Jesus when the fires of revolution are just startig .. or more like it .. flaring up once again .. after long history of flar-ups .. See Maccabees ..

Were there such dudes .... there was O Plenty .. John the Baptist -- Regarded as a Modern day 1rst century prophet .. beat Jesus to the Punch in terms of Jewish Holy men talking in apocalyptic tones ..

Now .. this pupil of Rabbi Hillel -- Most famous Rabbi who is 100 Years old at the time .. one of the two schools of Jewish thought named after him .. an up and coming Jewish Rabbi --- as Jesus was .. would have sat on his knee as a young lad . Jesus recites Hillel and this teaching is the rock on which he bases his ministry ... salvation .. putting one right with God .. the whole thing .. .. who ever this fellow was .. or who ever was the fellow who made this fellow up was .. used Hillel ideas as base ideology .. went around -- gathered many followers .. perhaps learned some Tricks from the Egyptians .. was a wonder worker -- Nothing spectacuar or out of the ordinary here so far .. which fellow do you want to model Jesus after is the question .. not whether or not there was one.

Mark did use a lot of Rabbi Hillel wisdom as well as re-writes of OT stories, Pauls letters, Romulus, typical hero journey narrative, Greek theology and leaves little room for oral tradition.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Jesus of Nazareth has had quite the impact, for someone whose existence is supposedly in doubt .

 

[PureX]

I personally suspect that there was a real person at the source of the story of Jesus the Christ. But that as with all mythical stories, the facts were significantly altered to better convey the message that the story came to represent to people. I think it's also possible that the story is based on a conglomeration of several actual people living in that time and place.

In the end, this does not matter, as what matters now is the story, and the message and promise that it conveys to us in the present.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yeah, I mean like taking for granted that superatural/divine things do not occur. That is not the place of the historian, to purport to document supernatural occurences. If the theologian wants to come in and talk about that stuff, FINE. But if we're talking about the historical jesus, we are adopting the historian's pespective and the methodology of history, and that includes methodological naturalism.

And the upshot is that the scholarship has converged on the view that there very probably was a historical Jesus of Nazareth, and that he actually led a small, short, and ill-fated mission that ended with his death at the hands of the Romans for the charge of treason (i.e. claiming to be the messiah, i.e. the KIng of Israel- dangerous to crown yourself king when you are under military occupation by another empire).

But

"if we're talking about the historical jesus, we are adopting the historian's pespective and the methodology of history, and that includes methodological naturalism,"​

we are not padding bloated posts with talk of Jesus possessing

"an apparent ability to sweet-talk illiterate fishermen and farmers to follow him on his apocalyptic mission."​

I certainly haven't come across anything quite so crude (and contemptuous of fishermen and farmers) in the books I've read over the years. In fact, there is not even a consensus on Jesus as apocalyptic prophet.

You might wish to critically review Wikipedia's Historical Jesus entry before deigning to pontificate on the topic.

========

FWIW, I rather enjoyed Crossan, Vermes, and Maccoby, although the latter is somewhat of a peripheral figure.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. I agree there are options to believing what's written. Not sure what you mean by fanatical followers who said things about him that were false.

The Gospels present us with a miracle-working Son of God who dies and comes back from death. When evaluating the historicity of such a person, in light of the fact that, so far as we know, miracles don't occur and people don't come back from death (we are doing history, not theology, after all, and so must approach the matter from a secular/non-devotional perspective), we could either say

A. obviously there was no such person, because there are no miracle-working, self-resurrecting Sons of God

or we could say

B. maybe there was such a person, but they simply weren't a miracle-worker or a zombie or a son of God, and these were merely claims atttributed to, for instance, devote religious followers of this person

Mythicists like to take the first route, which is fallacious and lazy. Scientologists say all sorts of crazy things about L Ron Hubbard, imputing him magical and psychical powers and so forth- does that mean L Ron Hubbard did not exist and was mere myth? Of course not. It means L Ron Hubbard existed and his fanatical followers made up a bunch of ish about him after he died.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So you are saying these disciples, as well as others, spend three years with Jesus and just “thought” they saw Him do miracles like; feeding thousands of men, women and children with a few fish and loaves of bread, turn water to wine, heal lepers, the lame, the blind, and more, bring dead people back to life, then they thought they watched Him die by crucifixion, rise from the grave, and imagined they spent time talking, eating and interacting with Him afterwards.

Sure people can die and suffer for deeply held beliefs, but I highly doubt anyone would do so for fake beliefs, lies, and things that they know did not happen.

The Gospels are not reliable documents. THe fact that the relate a story about Jesus transforming loaves of broad and feeding the masses doesn't mean that any such thing actually happened. The Gospels were written decades after the events they purport to describe, by people who were not there and who speak an entirely different language. They were also written for the specific purpose of evangelizing. They contain kernels of historical information, but they must be teased out through rigorous analysis. You can not read them at face value as a history book.

And so we actually have little idea how many followers spent how long watching Jesus do... what. There's certainly no reason to think he actually did miracles. That said, it seems as if at least some apostles were martyred. All that proves is that their beliefs were genuine and sincere, it does NOT by any means prove that their beliefs were true. People can, and do, die for a sincerely held belief that happens to be false.

 

[Tomef]

I think we all know about the controversial writings of The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus and The Annals of Tacitus for example. Some say the parts about Jesus in their writings were forgeries and others think they were authentic. But these men were not even born at the time of the supposed crucifixion of Jesus that happened in 30-33AD. They were born after his death.

The only reason I might believe that Jesus existed 'possibly' is through the Pilate stone finding by archaeologists in 1961 which was dated between AD 26-37. And this is the correct time frame for the events described in the Gospels. But this is not evidence for Jesus but for Pontius Pilate.

The translation from Latin to English for the inscription reads:

To the Divine Augusti [this] Tiberieum...Pontius Pilate...prefect of Judea...has dedicated [this]...


Confirming this biblical figure's existence was crucial insofar that he played an important role in the execution of Jesus. This makes me think it's more plausible now that Pontius Pilate probably knew of a man named Jesus at the time and maybe even had a man named Jesus executed. But this is me just imagining such a scenario now. I can't ask Pilate what really happened then because he's been dead for about 2,000 years.

So, what is the evidence for Jesus?

I think it’s more likely than not there was a person whose teachings the gospels were more or less based on, just as there seems to have been a real individual at the centre of other religions. The Jesus of the gospels might be an amalgamation of sorts, but given that the account in Acts is taken to be more or less historical, in broad strokes, even by sceptics, the spread of the religion and other more easily established historical events it does seem to have started with someone teaching something.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But

"if we're talking about the historical jesus, we are adopting the historian's pespective and the methodology of history, and that includes methodological naturalism,"​

we are not padding bloated posts with talk of Jesus possessing

"an apparent ability to sweet-talk illiterate fishermen and farmers to follow him on his apocalyptic mission."​

I certainly haven't come across anything quite so crude (and contemptuous of fishermen and farmers) in the books I've read over the years. In fact, there is not even a consensus on Jesus as apocalyptic prophet.

You might wish to critically review Wikipedia's Historical Jesus entry before deigning to pontificate on the topic.

========

FWIW, I rather enjoyed Crossan, Vermes, and Maccoby, although the latter is somewhat of a peripheral figure.

Heh, I could probably write the WIki stub on the historical Jesus at this point, its long been a hobby of mine and I am quite well read on the matter (and yes, there is indeed a consensus that Jesus was an apocalypticist- sorry).

Now I'm sorry if my mild rhetorical flourish hurt you in the fee-fees, but I gotta say, this is about as vacuous a non-response as you could possibly compose. My posts might be bloated, but you've managed to post literally nothing of substance here. A couple ad-homs and some whining. Yikes. Care to try again? Or were you merely registering your emotional reaction to my post?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

His divine nature was implied by prophecy.

Nah, not so much. It was more a matter of backfilling in prophecy after the fact, like the trainwreck that is the genealogies of Joseph (or grossly re-interpreting OT passages like the infamous passage in Isaiah about Israel). Jesus was just a regular joe, albeit one who was apparently quite charismatic and had a sincere believe in the impending apocalypse. I'll also hand it to him, he seems to have been a compassionate gent whose ethics were commendable despite the fact that they were based on a ludicrously faulty premise (i.e. that the world as we know it was about to end).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... given that the account in Acts is taken to be more or less historical, in broad strokes, even by sceptics, the spread of the religion and other more easily established historical events it does seem to have started with someone teaching something.

Yes, while emphasizing that it was the "broad strokes" of a Christian apologist.

The existence of the Jerusalem sect seems likely. That, Josephus, and the apparent absence of anything approaching an early mythicist polemic, seems more than enough to provisionally infer the existence of a sect leader named Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Heh, I could probably write the WIki stub on the historical Jesus at this point, ...

Or were you merely registering your emotional reaction to my post?

^ This, mainly because historicity has been addressed many, many times both here and in the old Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

 

[Tomef]

early mythicist

I think that whole notion of Carrier’s is confusing the use of common tropes in writing with their being (or not) some factual basis behind the impetus to write.