How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[Ingledsva]

That he was born to Joseph and Mary is the only historical element of Jesus' story before he had met John the Baptist. And by historical, I mean a plausible explanation for the evidence for which no competing explanations exist.

Oldbadger is putting out some very interesting Jesus fan fiction which seems largely ignorant of the differences between the historical Jesus and the embellished Jesus of the Bible, here clearly putting forth the ignorant assumption that the virgin birth and other such magical claims are something real historians should bother considering. This is, of course, because he is an agenda-driven imbecile.

To take this in another direction -


We know they had Temple Virgins - Emmanuel is Isaiah's son by a Temple Virgin.


Several unaccepted books, and the Qur'an, tell us that Mary lived at the Temple - a Temple Virgin.


Later groups turned a Temple Virgin/Maiden - into the Virgin Mary story.


Jesus could be a son of the Temple Virgin, by the Roman, Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, and if so, perhaps they needed to quickly find her an older husband, before she gave birth.


Perhaps - if she was a Temple Virgin, - they may have considered her baby special, and therefore found her a respectable, set, older husband.


*

 

[Prophet]

To take this in another direction -


We know they had Temple Virgins - Emmanuel is Isaiah's son by a Temple Virgin.


Several unaccepted books, and the Qur'an, tell us that Mary lived at the Temple - a Temple Virgin.


Later groups turned a Temple Virgin/Maiden - into the Virgin Mary story.


Jesus could be a son of the Temple Virgin, by the Roman, Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, and if so, perhaps they needed to quickly find her an older husband, before she gave birth.


Perhaps - if she was a Temple Virgin, - they may have considered her baby special, and therefore found her a respectable, set, older husband.


*

We know today that virgins do not become pregnant. Now that I think of it, someone seemed to know this in antiquity as well, too:

Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father".

While none of Jesus' critics in antiquity ever thought to question raise the notion that maybe Jesus existed, there were certainly people who questioned the idea that he was born of a virgin and Christianity is supposed to be about praising this miracle man for the wonders that proved his identity as special.

Gnostic ideas on Christianity disagreeing violently with the orthodox views is an ongoing theme in gnostic scripture. I believe history's clues point to an empire-wide book burning of gnostic scripture for practical purposes of power consolidation.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't believe we can say anything at all historically about Jesus before he began he met John the Baptist. I think that is the first thing that can be said to be historically plausible.

The childhood or infancy stories are not plausible.

Sure, you have a solid point there. Connecting the infant Jesus to the adult is as problematic as is connecting the adult to the resirrected Jesus.

 

[Prophet]

Sure, you have a solid point there. Connecting the infant Jesus to the adult is as problematic as is connecting the adult to the resirrected Jesus.

Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die. As God lives, he would [...].

Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing.

I believe the Gospel of Philip agrees with you and seems to imply that the resurrection is not a physical one.

 

[Ingledsva]

To take this in another direction -


We know they had Temple Virgins - Emmanuel is Isaiah's son by a Temple Virgin.


Several unaccepted books, and the Qur'an, tell us that Mary lived at the Temple - a Temple Virgin.


Later groups turned a Temple Virgin/Maiden - into the Virgin Mary story.


Jesus could be a son of the Temple Virgin, by the Roman, Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, and if so, perhaps they needed to quickly find her an older husband, before she gave birth.


Perhaps - if she was a Temple Virgin, - they may have considered her baby special, and therefore found her a respectable, set, older husband.

We know today that virgins do not become pregnant. Now that I think of it, someone seemed to know this in antiquity as well, too:

Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father".

While none of Jesus' critics in antiquity ever thought to question raise the notion that maybe Jesus existed, there were certainly people who questioned the idea that he was born of a virgin and Christianity is supposed to be about praising this miracle man for the wonders that proved his identity as special.

Gnostic ideas on Christianity disagreeing violently with the orthodox views is an ongoing theme in gnostic scripture. I believe history's clues point to an empire-wide book burning of gnostic scripture for practical purposes of power consolidation.

Ummmm! Did you even read what I wrote?


They had Temple Virgins = "young maidens" that lived and worked in the Temples, - not perpetual virgins. The Qur'an says Mary was one of these.

And young girls do get pregnant.


We know perfectly well that we have a huge myth around Jesus, if he even existed.



*

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ummmm! Did you even read what I wrote?


They had Temple Virgins = "young maidens" that lived and worked in the Temples, - not perpetual virgins. The Qur'an says Mary was one of these.

And young girls do get pregnant.


We know perfectly well that we have a huge myth around Jesus, if he even existed.



*

To ancient cultures, didn't "virginity" really mean just a state of being unmarried? That's how I understand it, and it's really only today's concept of virginity that makes it mean no sexual activity.

 

[Bunyip]

Anyone pregnant out of wedlock would be very motivated to invent an excuse, the punishment was stoning. So claiming divine intervention would make sense. A pregnant temple girl does make sense.

 

[Bunyip]

OK...... but....... I can't stop thinking about the Sepphoris incident, and that date, and the likelihood of refugees during that time.

Next...... refugees do align with the birth story, sort of....

Next..... Some evangelical momentum does deserve to be edited out, but I do feel that some momentum is hyperbole, such as in the miracles of G-Mark, and possibly in the refugee story.

I can't push what I don't prove, but I would still keep the 'early years' in mind.

Sure, you can not prove these sort of hypothesis - but that does not remove their value. They could certainly lead us to where to look for evidence.

 

[oldbadger]

Anyone pregnant out of wedlock would be very motivated to invent an excuse, the punishment was stoning. So claiming divine intervention would make sense. A pregnant temple girl does make sense.

Hi...
Earlier I mentioned that Mary might have been raped by Romans during, just before or just after the Sepphoris incident. I honestly don't know what Prophet read into my posts........ some members just do my head in.

 

[Bunyip]

Hi...
Earlier I mentioned that Mary might have been raped by Romans during, just before or just after the Sepphoris incident. I honestly don't know what Prophet read into my posts........ some members just do my head in.

Mary being raped (or ptherwise impregnated) by a Roman would be a valid explanation of the evidence. It may even be possible to find evidence for.

 

[fantome profane]

Later groups turned a Temple Virgin/Maiden - into the Virgin Mary story.

I think you might have the chronology backwards here. Later groups associated the virgin Mary story with the temple virgins.

 

[oldbadger]

Mary being raped (or ptherwise impregnated) by a Roman would be a valid explanation of the evidence. It may even be possible to find evidence for.

Possible......
In a situation where the academic consensus can more-or-less agree on J's baptism and execution (which I don't feel sure about!) then I think we have to accept that 99% of the Gospel stories are filed into the possible or plausible boxes. (EDIT:.... or rubbish boxes!)

Even new and outstanding archaeological tools may not be able to help us delve much further into the quest for an HJ. As you will know, 'they' dug up Richard 111 in a Midlands car-park and verified his remains from DNA tracing, even rebuilding his features from the skull which matched a contemporary painting..... but that was only a third of the time-span back to HJ, they knew approximately where he had been buried, they have living descendants, blah blah..... but..... HJ?

It's hard to imagine how technological advances could discover more... we still argue and discuss over 'crosses' and 'stakes' FGS. When our historical base is that weak, all we are left to do is wonder and discuss.

Personally, as an amateur, I am content to contemplate a few 'bundles' of ideas:
Gospel of Mark with evangelical momentum edited out.
The pardoning of Barabbas, and the possibility of two or more personal histories mixed up.
The Sepphoris revolt, siege and Nazareth.
Claims of a Jesus buried in Kashmir.

Give the above to 100 persons and we would get 100 widely differing and most heated variations. But, at the same time, a quiet shuffling Jesus heal-for-meal' type with 2-3 hangers-on could emerge from the mix, who threw a 'care-in-the-community' type hissy-fit in the Temple and got arrested. (Do you understand care-in-community'? It's mental patients without full time hospital care). ..... leaving a tough hard political brigand who just hated Romans and the quisling upper class and wanted to make a statement or take something for himself. ............ I do wish that more had been written about Barabbas.......

I don't know.... .... who does?

 

[Bunyip]

OldBadger

The Richard 3rd story is a crucial lesson here, there may be wonders still to be found for Jesus. Can you imagine the guy doing a TV doco for kids on archeology in a nearby carpark - when they found Richard the 3rd? Temple records, garrison records may still exist, but you have to hypothesise in order to know where to look.

 

[oldbadger]

OldBadger

The Richard 3rd story is a crucial lesson here, there may be wonders still to be found for Jesus. Can you imagine the guy doing a TV doco for kids on archeology in a nearby carpark - when they found Richard the 3rd? Temple records, garrison records may still exist, but you have to hypothesise in order to know where to look.

Yes......... the future does hold all manner of wonderful possibilities.
We do live in an amazing age.......

 

[Estro Felino]

How certain are we that Siddharta Gautama was historical?

 

[fantome profane]

How certain are we that Siddharta Gautama was historical?

I am somewhat less certain of the historicity of Gautama than I am of Jesus.

Why do you ask?

 

[Estro Felino]

Why do you ask?

I ask because in this forum there must be tens of threads questioning Jesus' historicity, but probably not even one about Buddha's historicity.

 

[Bunyip]

I ask because in this forum there must be tens of threads questioning Jesus' historicity, but probably not even one about Buddha's historicity.

Are there any buddists claiming to have established the historicity of Budda? Does it matter to buddists?

 

[paarsurrey]

I ask because in this forum there must be tens of threads questioning Jesus' historicity, but probably not even one about Buddha's historicity.

The Atheists/Agnostics think that Buddha did not believe in God, so they never challenge his historicity.

Abraham, Moses, Jesus believed in God; so the Atheists/Agnostics take it convenient to deny their historicity.

Regards

 

[JM2C]

The Atheists/Agnostics think that Buddha did not believe in God, so they never challenge his historicity.

Abraham, Moses, Jesus believed in God; so the Atheists/Agnostics take it convenient to deny their historicity.
Regards

Legion is agnostic but he argues otherwise didn't he? His arguments are from knowledge and not from ignorance.

I "seem to think" that those who haven't done their research not only are largely ignorant of which they speak but are often incapable of realizing the extent to which they lack the requisite knowledge to make the judgments they do.

If someone said something I found implausible in such a field, I would make damn sure I was aware enough of the state of research in order to at least judge the extent of my ignorance.

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance. -Confucius