Was Jesus an Historical Person?

[oldbadger]

This website explores in depth the historicity of Jesus and his apostles.

*Link Deleted*

At this point in time, I certainly don't believe a miracle working Jesus ever existed, but I do think the story or the legend of Jesus may have been inspired by a real person who lived during that time. . . perhaps Judas the Galilean or one of his sons, James or Simon.

What do you think?

Hi.....
I don't think it does....... explore in depth, etc....
I think it patters about on the surface.
I read about great 'Scholars' who partially or totally disagree with each other. There is little discussion, and one historian on RF puts up with untold aggression and abuse!
Another has opened a thread to ridicule the constant interest and repeat debates.

I reckon a lay person with access to the internet and 'simple objective interest', could possibly do better than professional scholars, who are mostly tied to their paychecks and possibly suffer from incurable intellectual myopia.

I'm waiting for somebody with access to the languages to undertake a five-part investigation:

What was Certain?
What was Probable?
What was Possible?
What was Improbable?
What was Impossible?

The Gospels can be scrutinised and their reports can be studied and decisions taken as to which of the above groups they belong within. Where a member simply stuffs the whole lot in 'Impossible' this might show how much interest was really taken. Where a member stuffs all in Certain....... ok?

Take your belief that 'a miracle working Jesus' did not exist. Which of the five groups do you really want to file that in? I went to watch Harry Edwards at Leatherhead, England in the early 70's. He was a healer. I sat near a garrulous skeptic who had come to watch, and that guy left in a state of silenced shocked amazement.

If Jesus could do what Harry Edwards could do, then I would file the Healer claim into Probable. But I would file the Lazarus claim into impossible, simply because witnesses expect listeners to 'reduce' on claims, and so they 'stretch' to compensate. Hyperbole at its best.

The 'Certain' box is valuable, because while most researchers won't use it, where a person fills it, this tells us a lot about that person. I reckon that the other four boxes could receive sixth, third, third and sixth shares of the Gospel's reports.

Interested? By the way, I am just interested...... I am not a proper christian.

 

[oldbadger]

But here is the kicker. Jesus wasnt a military leader by sword. he was a smart man who knew violence against the Romans was suicide. He was a zealot rebel who was trying to use peace against teh Romans to hit them where it hurt. Money.

Money

Give up all your possessions, and share with each other and the Romans will have nothing to tax. He was trying to stop he tax income through peaceful resistance.

Remember about the time Jesus was born not 5 miles from his home town Judas had Sepphoris leveled, thousands died, Jews lost, and many were sent to slavery. jesus knew for a fact, violence was a loser for Jews against the roman empire.

That's a new angle............ highly probable, I reckon.


EDIT: Why don't you produce your own work (book) on the historical Jesus? Or.... are you? I'd buy it!

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Outhouse wrote:
You also need to explain why Romans would deify one of their oppressed peasant Jewish subjects and place him in direct competition with the emporers divinity.

We really do not know if Jesus was deified until we have the fully extant gospels approved by Constantine in the 4th century. Who knows what the gospels said in the first, second and third centuries as we only have small fragments of them. By the 4th century, Jesus was a long dead deity whose promise to return had not been fulfilled. . .so what threat did a dead deity pose to Constantine?

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Outhouse wrote:
But here is the kicker. Jesus wasnt a military leader by sword. he was a smart man who knew violence against the Romans was suicide. He was a zealot rebel who was trying to use peace against teh Romans to hit them where it hurt. Money.

Yes, the 4th century gospel Jesus was not a military leader, 300 years after the original 'Jesus' lived. But we do not have any extant accounts of 'Jesus' in any extant 1st century texts? However, we do have accounts of other messiah claimants from the first century who did aspire to be military leaders and true messiahs in the way the Jews had hoped for to end Roman oppression just as Judah Maccabee had been a messiah figure who fought to end the Greek occupation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We really do not know if Jesus was deified until we have the fully extant gospels approved by Constantine in the 4th century.

And your evidence of Constantine approving or disapproving specific gospels would be what?

 

[outhouse]

That's a new angle............ highly probable, I reckon.


EDIT: Why don't you produce your own work (book) on the historical Jesus? Or.... are you? I'd buy it!

It snot really a new angle. Meyers, Crossan, Borg, Reed, Moss all sort of follow this.

The Scribes.

My book is in progress. It is part fiction, following as close to my personal version of history. Sort of like a modern day apostle telling his version. It is my view, to bring back the very Jewish Jesus as if a follower of Judaism was telling the legend, not a Roman or Proselyte.

Its in the beginning stages so we will see, I have a published author coaching me now.
Even if I dont finish it, I enjoy it. What ive learned while writing it to is a huge payoff. It has humbled me and given me a respect for any author.

Thank you.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Replying to Jayhawker Soule:

Constantine ordered Eusebious to create 50 bibles
Fifty Bibles of Constantine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is speculated that this commission may have provided motivation for the development of the canon lists and that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are possible surviving examples of these Bibles

My point here is not so much Constantine's role here but to illuminate the fact that the first extant copies of the bible were not known until the 4 th century when we find the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. In other words we do not have complete extant copies of the gospels before that time.

 

[outhouse]

We really do not know if Jesus was deified until we have the fully extant gospels approved by Constantine in the 4th century. Who knows what the gospels said in the first, second and third centuries as we only have small fragments of them. By the 4th century, Jesus was a long dead deity whose promise to return had not been fulfilled. . .so what threat did a dead deity pose to Constantine?

Your missing the boat here.

Paul wrote about his divinity decades after his death, This was done too mortal men and taken in different context then todays version of a deity.

GMark was written to and for Romans. Gmark was so short it likely wasnt redacted heavily.

We also know the surviving text were not the only ones.

 

[outhouse]

Replying to Jayhawker Soule:

Constantine ordered Eusebious to create 50 bibles
Fifty Bibles of Constantine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



My point here is not so much Constantine's role here but to illuminate the fact that the first extant copies of the bible were not known until the 4 th century when we find the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. In other words we do not have complete extant copies of the gospels before that time.

Just like the OT, these were collections that were widely circulated before they were compiled and canonized


If your making a arguement against dating, you will have a tough time going against the non biased scholars who have established what dates the different books are from.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Your missing the boat here.

Paul wrote about his divinity decades after his death, This was done too mortal men and taken in different context then todays version of a deity.

GMark was written to and for Romans. Gmark was so short it likely wasnt redacted heavily.

We also know the surviving text were not the only ones.

Are there extant copies of the gospels or Paulines in the first century? And how could you possibly know how much or how little gMark was redacted?

 

[outhouse]

Are there extant copies of the gospels or Paulines in the first century? And how could you possibly know how much or how little gMark was redacted?

Gmark had a very distinct writing style, and it was very short. If you understood the details these pieces go through, it would amaze you.

Do you understand how the lierature was composed, his writing style? how many parts to his style? His grammer? how fluent? hebraisms? Aramaic translations used? What geographic location does the writing match? from what time period does the writing match?

All these are under a microscope by unbiased scholars. Even apologetically inclined scholars look deep just to prove themselves right or wrong.



No Pauline scripture exist from that date, but hat is not always a factor in determining when pieces were written. Due to the history involved his original 7 epistles are dated fairly close though, and you dont find any credible scholar really questioning these dates too much.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Paul indicated he was writing in the first century, but we have no extant copies of his MSS from that time, and no contemporary person in the first century ever heard of Paul. It seems Paul was like Forrest Gump. He writes of his meetings with Herod, Nero and others, but none of them ever acknowledges him.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Paul indicated he was writing in the first century, but we have no extant copies of his MSS from that time

What do you suppose we have for others? In the 4th edition of The Texts of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, we find: "the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of material. Furthermore, the work of many ancient authors has been preserved only in manuscripts that date from the Middle Ages (sometimes the late Middle ages), far removed from the time at which they lived and wrote. On the contrary, the time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest extant copies is relatively brief. Instead of the lapse of a millenium or more, as is the case of not a few classical authors, several papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament are extant that were copied within a century or so after the composition of the original documents."

and no contemporary person in the first century ever heard of Paul.

The author of Luke had, for one. And as we have only a handful of 1st century authors whose work remains extant, we're lucky to have Paul's own letters.

He writes of his meetings with Herod, Nero and others, but none of them ever acknowledges him.

1) Where does Paul write this?
2) We have no writings of Herod, or Nero. And almost no copies of any compositions from the first century which mention either. How would we expect this acknowledgment?

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Are there extant copies of Luke from the 1st century that mention Paul??

Besides, the writings of Luke are pseudoanonymous.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

2) We have no writings of Herod, or Nero. And almost no copies of any compositions from the first century which mention either. How would we expect this acknowledgment?

Perhaps Suetonius or Tacitus could have mentioned Paul's visits with Herod or Nero, but they did not. And Justin Martyr was unaware of Paul in the 2nd century.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We really do not know if Jesus was deified until we have the fully extant gospels approved by Constantine in the 4th century.

And your evidence of Constantine approving or disapproving specific gospels would be what?

Replying to Jayhawker Soule:

Constantine ordered Eusebious to create 50 bibles ...

It is speculated that this commission may have provided motivation

My point here is not so much Constantine's role ...

My point is that someone who casually offers speculation as fact should perhaps be deemed less that credible when it comes to discussions of historicity.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

The greater point is that the full extant gospels were not available before the 4 th century, and this is **not** speculation.

 

[outhouse]

The greater point is that the full extant gospels were not available before the 4 th century, and this is **not** speculation.

We factually have more information then that.

We have enough ancient historians picking on Marcion for his limited Canons, they flat have told us almost sentance by sentance, what his gospels contained.


ancient fragments datuing very early also match existing copies.



really you raise more questions then answer by claiming only the canonized version is historical.


Anyone can say No! try and replace what we have with a replacement hypothesis then let the laughs begin. So far there is nothing that makes better sense then what is the current status quo. Carrier hasnt explained his version yet, and Price is easily refuted.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The greater point is that ...

What specifically makes this point "greater"?

 

[outhouse]

Are there extant copies of Luke from the 1st century that mention Paul??

Besides, the writings of Luke are pseudoanonymous.

Luke/acts was barely finished late first century, and by 150 CE we knew what it contained. yes it has Paul.