• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

S

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
joelr said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sure to other influences -- plenty of motifs to consider .. this fellow who claimed to be a prophet .. and was a reputed wonder worker. The influence of Hillel however is particularly interesting from a historical perspective..

A messianic figure such as Jesus .. and there were a number in the age of Jewish Messianic furvor that was the last century BC and first century AD in the Holy Land :) .. It makes perfect sence that such a figure would come out of one of the two major schools --- and have been educated through the Church as Jesus was reputed .. perhaps even being a favorite pupil of the Aged Hillel .. a Wizard in his own right.

I come not to bring peace .. but the Sword .. say this figure .. yet was also the prince of Peace .. a Priest forever in the Order of Melchi-Zedek

This Rasputin of Priests .. gathered a following .. introducing a new religion of sorts .. departing from traditional Judaism in ways that the Pharasees did not like .. Got himself Crucified as a heretic .. .. buried in a cave .. a few days later the tomb is empty .. and here the original story ends .. the reader left to wonder who stole the body of Jesus.
 
Enai de a lukal

Enai de a lukal

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Fictive tales are studded with facts. Again quoting Wikipedia:

In Matthew 2:23, the return to Nazareth is said to be a fulfilment of the prophetic word, "He shall be called a Nazarene". It is not clear which Old Testament verse Matthew might have had in mind; many commentators suggest it is Isaiah 11:1, where it says "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit" (NIV): the Hebrew word for "branch" is nezer.[9][10] [source]
Click to expand...
That's great. And it turns out he was from a different village in rural Roman Judea, then great. But none of this has anything to do with my points, this is simply interesting historical trivia.

  1. I'm not entirely sure which Josephus passage you find problematic,
  2. I tend to think that the so-called similarities are fabricated or exaggerated, and, even were that the case,
  3. such 'similarities' would cast doubt on the question of divinity, not historicity.
Click to expand...
1. Its the same passage that is continually being contested. The question being what the original looked like.
2. That's great for you, but some of those similarities are pretty striking and can't be dismissed so easily
3. no, they would cast doubt on the historicity as well- if I tell a story that sound suspiciously like another popular story, that increases the odds my story was fictional

But remember, you asked me for evidence for a proposition I think is false. So none of these are going to be knockdown pieces of evidence. The point is that there can be evidence against a proposition which happens to be true.
 
Enai de a lukal

Enai de a lukal

Well-Known Member
Ebionite said:
It wasn't backfilling - Molnar's solution did not mention Balaam's vision. Also the sign of the star of Bethlehem connects to the third Abrahamic religion via the flag of the Ottoman empire, since that flag can symbolise the lunar occultation of a star.

The point that most people don't get about Isaiah 53 is that it is about the righteous servant and that title was never associated with Israel. The righteous servant of Psalm 35 connects to the gospel of John via the idea of fulfilment, and the immediate context of John is about the testimony of Yeshua.

But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:25-26
Click to expand...
None of the OT prophecies properly applied to Jesus, so everything had to be switched around and re-interpreted. The entire thing was a post-hoc rearguard. Like I said, the genealogies of Joseph and the gross misrepresentation of Isaiah 53 sort of tell you all you need to know: this was a round peg square hole situation, and jam that round peg into the square hole is precisely what they did, to predictable results. The Jewish prophecies had nothing to do with Jesus, and have no applicability to Christianity.
 
Enai de a lukal

Enai de a lukal

Well-Known Member
Ebionite said:
Refuting this involves looking at the theology of blood sacrifice, particularly how the practice was repudiated by the prophets. Yeshua repudiated it with the cleansing of the temple, and with references to Hosea 6:6.
Click to expand...
Factual/historical claims cannot be refuted on theological grounds. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? But its been well documented that this was the routine practice for crucifiction victims, and scholars have fairly widely debunked the "Joseph of Arimathea" story. There would have been no body to even resurrect after 3 days (or if there was, it would have been a complete horror show.
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Enai de a lukal said:
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.
Click to expand...
The basic "historicity" is that of the Jewish nation regarding some persons (not a lot) that were brought back from death to life.
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Enai de a lukal said:
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?
Click to expand...
Your comment here makes it more apparent to me that Jesus was a human, not a godhuman, and that God approved of him and that he was accepted as the Sacrificial Lamb by his heavenly Father.
"As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens were opened,d and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on Him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!” (Matthew 3)
 
Niatero

Niatero

*banned*
Some of my current thoughts about a historical Jesus:
- I don't think that it matters for his purposes if a person thinks that he really existed or not.
- I'm guessing that the gospel stories mostly contain lessons that were taught by a real person who travelled in and between Galilee and Judea near the end of the second temple period. That includes the miracle stories as metaphorical stories that he told about himself, which were later misunderstood or embellished as physical happenings. In my story, he repeated those stories many times, and his followers did the same. The stories were designed in a way that preserves the lessons even if some of the details change in transmission and translation. Those stories continued to circulate in communities of his followers until they were used differently by different people for different purposes in the writings that became the gospels.

(later) Actually, none of that is about a historical Jesus. It looks to me like there isn't any real ground to stand on in current historical methods, to say that the gospel stories did or did not grow out of stories told by followers of a real person who travelled in and between Galilee and Judea near the end of the second temple period.
 
Last edited:
joelr

joelr

Well-Known Member
Sargonski said:
Sure to other influences -- plenty of motifs to consider .. this fellow who claimed to be a prophet .. and was a reputed wonder worker. The influence of Hillel however is particularly interesting from a historical perspective..

A messianic figure such as Jesus .. and there were a number in the age of Jewish Messianic furvor that was the last century BC and first century AD in the Holy Land :) .. It makes perfect sence that such a figure would come out of one of the two major schools --- and have been educated through the Church as Jesus was reputed .. perhaps even being a favorite pupil of the Aged Hillel .. a Wizard in his own right.

I come not to bring peace .. but the Sword .. say this figure .. yet was also the prince of Peace .. a Priest forever in the Order of Melchi-Zedek

This Rasputin of Priests .. gathered a following .. introducing a new religion of sorts .. departing from traditional Judaism in ways that the Pharasees did not like .. Got himself Crucified as a heretic .. .. buried in a cave .. a few days later the tomb is empty .. and here the original story ends .. the reader left to wonder who stole the body of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Mark definitely used Hillelite philosophy for his character.
Carrier believes the empty tomb looks to be more literary creation:

Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? • Richard Carrier Blogs

I have written on this question in many different places. Here I collect excerpts from, or summarize, several of the most important. You’ll find further material and expanded arguments, with evidence and footnotes and cited scholarship, in my contributions to The Empty Tomb and my books Proving...
www.richardcarrier.info www.richardcarrier.info
 
S

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
joelr said:
Mark definitely used Hillelite philosophy for his character.
Carrier believes the empty tomb looks to be more literary creation:

Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? • Richard Carrier Blogs

I have written on this question in many different places. Here I collect excerpts from, or summarize, several of the most important. You’ll find further material and expanded arguments, with evidence and footnotes and cited scholarship, in my contributions to The Empty Tomb and my books Proving...
www.richardcarrier.info www.richardcarrier.info
Click to expand...

Yes .. as mentioned .. there are numerous familiar motif's .. "The Cave" being just one .. Caves and Gods go hand in hand .. resurrection Gods in particular if not mistaken .. Caves are in the Mountains ...so common among the Vulcan God Motifs .. Haephaestos and so forth ... Yahu of the Shasu is such a God -- The Shasu a midianite peopole .. the folks who Moses went to visit .. having grown up Egyptian knew only those Gods .. having never heard much about Yahu .. goes to live with the midianite people .. a Midianite Priest in fact .. marry's his daughter .. and this is where Moses is adopted by Yahu .. in the mountain .. and this is a God of the Mountain .. also a Dragon God .. fire from his nostrels going well with the volcanic mountain .. smoke .. fire breathing beast ..

One cool and much overlooked motif is the Messiah motif .. "Annointed one of God" ..This is how Jesus is introduced .. not as immaculately concieved .. nor pre-existent as later versions of the story would claim .. there is no virgen Birth in Mark.. Jesus is adopted by a God as a man of 30 KK?? .. and this is like PAGE 1 - What is a reader who has only just heard of Jesus .. reading this story think ?

Adopted by a God .. Goes on to lead a great nation ? where have we heard that story before .. can even put the basket in the water and be rescued if we want the oldest of oldest of Stories Sargon of Akkad .. put in basket in water .. pulled out by gardener .. adopted by Goddess .. goes from humble origins to unite the city states of sumeria into the worlds first Empire .. His God the God of Abraham .. Ol Sargon the Great.

but "The annointed one" this is King David .. priest forever of the Order "Melchi-Zedek
King Cyrus of Persia .. "annointed one of God' .. massive world empire ..
Jesus - annointed one of God --- a priest forever of the order Melchi-Zedek

So Jesus is introduced as a Man .. not a God .. who has no divine spark until his baptism .. and even after recieving that spark (a tiny piece of the All spark) is not yet divine unti he passes through ritual testing (motif central) man of age 30 - 40 days in Desert with no food .. a ritual test .. in this case tested by the famous "Tester of Souls" Ha Satan

What is a first century reader thinking of the story at this point ? because even though you don't know who the Tester of Souls is .. he does .. and if you don't know who the "Annointed one of God" - Messiah is .. no worries .. cause He does.

and though you most certainly know nothing about the priestly order of Melchi-Zedek .. never mind who the God of this order is .. a first century Reader Does ..

Jesus is a Man - a Prophet - a wonder worker - one of magnitude greater than John the Baptist .. somewhere at the level of Elisha . I think thats what folks ask him .. are you Elisha reborn .. something like that.

The idea - to the 1st century reader - that this Jesus person was being portrayed as the God who adopted him is preposterous false nonsense on steroids.. This is not the Jesus of the original story .. he is a man .. prophet ..speaks the word of God through the "Spirit of the Lord" like all the other prophets .. does works of wonder like many of the other prophets. .. not only Israelite Prophets but those of every people .. all had wonder workers .. turning sticks into snakes .. and so on.

One of these folks amassed a bit of a following .. and that following deified this fellow after death ... those stories grew over time .. Matt adding a virgin birth and physical resurrection stories .. The original story ends with an empty tomb .. the leader left to wonder what happened to the body. Only in the updated - revised - and edited edition which came decades later answered the burning question and provided the smoking gun for the resurrection.. and these stories were probably added to Matt .. after the original version of Matt ~80 AD as Clement . .first pope ~95AD .. has never heard these stories .. knows naught of Zombie Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death..
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Ebionite said:
The facts usually get interpreted along religious lines. IMO it comes down to finding a consistent interpretation for what you know to be true.
Click to expand...
I gave your post a "Winner" frubal simply because it was such a fabulous and unvarnished description of rank confirmation bias. Once again, good job! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top