Was Jesus Only Human?

[sealchan]

I am of the opinion that a man called 'Jesus' existed, he was probably intelligent with a commanding personality, which made him stand out from the crowd, but like the rest of us was a mixture of good and not so good. The gospels writers used Jesus as their figurehead when creating the character of the promised messiah. I believe much of what they attributed to Jesus was either highly exaggerated or untrue, like the virgin birth and the resurrection myths. However, it is possible some things were factual, like him having a high opinion of himself, a very human condition, if not a pleasant one. As a kid he supposedly went off to the Temple to 'impress' the elders with him knowledge, without asking his parents permission, which was very naughty. Maybe they grounded him until he was 30, when he came to public attention. Jesus could have been a clever magician, the so called miracles were possibly nothing more than magic tricks, which took in the gullible. The exorcism nonsense did him no credit at all, as it caused a herd of pigs to fall over a cliff, animal cruelty, and harmful to the pig farmer, who presumably didn't get any compensation. Telling people to leave their responsibilities to follow him was stupid and very wrong. I can see why he angered the religious hierarchy of the day, not that was any excuse for having him crucified.

All in all I think he would have been an interesting person to get to know, but certainly not deserving of worship and adoration.

The gospels were written by those who saw in the stories of Jesus inspiration which lead those writers to craft stories with popular mythic motifs to embellish the stories they had read or had been told. Such mythic motifs are often far from what the listeners would expect to actually experience in their lives but the inspiration and hope, awe and entertainment that they perceived in these unlikely events made them important and true. This is seen today in the nature of those movies which earn the highest box office income and which are in the main reliant on purely fictional elements.

 

[oldbadger]

I thought the same thing at one point, that perhaps a figure named Jesus existed and said a few wise things that made people think he was some sort of prophet of a higher being. Of course, when you do the research, there is no credible evidence that such a man ever existed.

Not for you, maybe, but Jesus the man existed, just as the Baptist did.

 

[oldbadger]

What do you think about Pliny writing about Christians? On what basis do you reject it?

Pliny was writing about Christians and not Jesus .......

 

[oldbadger]

My position is ...

• that there is a difference between the question of historicity and the question of divinity,
• that the question of historicity is not an matter of proof but, rather, a matter of abduction (IBE, or Inference to the Best Explanation),
• that reading Acts and the Epistles as fact-laced polemic is far more reasonable than reading them as complete fabrications,
• that it is therefore reasonable to acknowledge the existence of a Jerusalem sect with which (and, to some extent, against which) Paul interacted,
• that it is likewise reasonable to acknowledge the existence of substantive Christian communities operating in the diaspora within decades of the purported crucifixion,
• that this recognition is supported by Pliny and Tacitus.
• that the Josephus reference is more than adequate to provisionally associate this movement with a sect leader named Jesus,
• that there is no evidence of the mythicist argument being raised during this period, and
• that historicity therefore stands as the inference to best explanation.

Yeah, but you're muddling up the promotion of Christianity (Acts on onwards) from the simple story of the Baptist's campaign, and a man called Jesus who picked it up and tried to carry it forward.

Both are based (on the balances of probability) to be based upon truth, but both are separate because the Christ story embellished the Jesus story immensely.

 

[shunyadragon]

Gospel of Mark is not a bad record that Jesus existed.

Not a bad record?!?!?! It is not actually within one generation of the 'estimated' life of Jesus Christ. Estimated date ~60 CE.

It is factual history that there is zip, nada, negatory, and absolutely no historical record that Jesus Christ existed in his 'estimated life time.

There were writers who were there at the time including Roman records.

From: Jesus Christ

Historical Non-Christian Sources
The earliest reference for the existence of Jesus outside Christian tradition is found in Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93 CE by Josephus (37-c.100 CE), a Roman Jewish scholar.

At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men, and joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah. (Antiquities, 18.3)

Scholarship almost unanimously rejects this passage, which seems to be either an addition or an alteration of the original text. The reason for this is the doubts triggered by the high praise given to Jesus by a Jewish author who is mostly concerned throughout his work in pleasing both Romans and Jews who were in conflict with the early Christians at that time. It may be the case that this passage is genuine in part, where it refers to Jesus' teaching, but was later edited to promote the Messianic message. Either way, as it stands, the passage raises suspicion.

A letter of Pliny the Younger (61-112 CE) asking the Roman Emperor Trajan for advice on the treatment of Christians has also come down to us. This document is dated around 110 CE, and it is the earliest surviving mention of the Christian community in Pagan literature. Tacitus, about 115 CE, writes about the persecution of Christians in Rome during the time of Nero.

[...] a race of men detested for their evil practices, and commonly called Chrestiani. The name was derived from Chrestus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, suffered under Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea. By that event the sect of which he was the founder received a blow which for a time checked the growth of a dangerous superstition; but it revived soon after, and spread with recruited vigour not only in Judea [...] but even in the city of Rome [...] (Durant, 281)

Tacitus goes on, talking about the bloody punishment ordered by Nero and suffered by the Christians. This paragraph is part of the description of the incidents linked to the Great Fire of the city of Rome which took place on July 18th in 64 CE.

The Roman historian Suetonius (c.69-c.122 CE) mentions a persecution and banishment of Christians around 50 CE during the reign of Claudius Caesar. This account was written about the same time as Tacitus wrote his.

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome. (Suetonius, Claudius 25)

This is consistent with what we read in the Acts of the Apostles (18.2), where it says that during the time of Claudius a decree ordering that “the Jews should leave Rome” was issued.

There are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus contemporary to his life. Except for Suetonius and Josephus, the rest of the sources do not actually refer to Jesus, but rather to the Christian community. Even Suetonius does not refer to the name of Jesus directly, but to his title “Christ”. This suggests that the Christian community was already established in Rome some years before 50 CE; otherwise, it would not have merited the attention of these writers and certainly would not have been worthy of an imperial decree.

 

[shunyadragon]

Pliny was writing about Christians and not Jesus .......

So are the writings of Josephus, which are known to be corrupted.

 

[oldbadger]

Huh?!?

Easy one to answer.

An atheist, with no belief whatever in anything Divine, can be a brilliant historical researcher, and believe that the man Jesus was real.

 

[1213]

Was Jesus Only Human?

I think that is what the Bible tells:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

But still, I think Jesus is good, and not evil at all. I believe what the Bible tells about him.

 

[oldbadger]

It is not a record that can be dated within one generation of the 'estimated' life of Jesus Christ.

It is factual history that there is zip, nada, negatory, and absolutely no historical record that Jesus Christ existed in his 'estimated life time.

The fact that you refer to Jesus Christ shows that you have never researched Jesus the man

You are muddling Divinity with History, just as Jayhawker may have been trying to tell you.

G-Mark was probably written circa 50-60CE and in the lifetimes of witnesses. It could well be the memoirs of Cephas.

You only have to study the history to perceive the man, but the Christ story is separate

 

[oldbadger]

So are the writings of Josephus, which are known to be corrupted.

Wrong.
Josephus was writing about troublemakers because his entry of Jesus is placed this. Obviously Christians messed with it but the value of the entry is all about where it was placed. Ergo, it was a real entry about Jesus.

The Baptist's entry was much more complimentary and real as well.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wrong.
Josephus was writing about troublemakers because his entry of Jesus is placed this. Obviously Christians messed with it but the value of the entry is all about where it was placed. Ergo, it was a real entry about Jesus.

The Baptist's entry was much more complimentary and real as well.

See my more complete reference concerning the details of Josephus writings. It is a very very late corrupted reference.

I will repeat for your benefit:

From: Jesus Christ

Historical Non-Christian Sources
The earliest reference for the existence of Jesus outside Christian tradition is found in Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93 CE by Josephus (37-c.100 CE), a Roman Jewish scholar.

At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men, and joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah. (Antiquities, 18.3)

Scholarship almost unanimously rejects this passage, which seems to be either an addition or an alteration of the original text. The reason for this is the doubts triggered by the high praise given to Jesus by a Jewish author who is mostly concerned throughout his work in pleasing both Romans and Jews who were in conflict with the early Christians at that time. It may be the case that this passage is genuine in part, where it refers to Jesus' teaching, but was later edited to promote the Messianic message. Either way, as it stands, the passage raises suspicion.

A letter of Pliny the Younger (61-112 CE) asking the Roman Emperor Trajan for advice on the treatment of Christians has also come down to us. This document is dated around 110 CE, and it is the earliest surviving mention of the Christian community in Pagan literature. Tacitus, about 115 CE, writes about the persecution of Christians in Rome during the time of Nero.

[...] a race of men detested for their evil practices, and commonly called Chrestiani. The name was derived from Chrestus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, suffered under Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea. By that event the sect of which he was the founder received a blow which for a time checked the growth of a dangerous superstition; but it revived soon after, and spread with recruited vigour not only in Judea [...] but even in the city of Rome [...] (Durant, 281)

Tacitus goes on, talking about the bloody punishment ordered by Nero and suffered by the Christians. This paragraph is part of the description of the incidents linked to the Great Fire of the city of Rome which took place on July 18th in 64 CE.

The Roman historian Suetonius (c.69-c.122 CE) mentions a persecution and banishment of Christians around 50 CE during the reign of Claudius Caesar. This account was written about the same time as Tacitus wrote his.

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome. (Suetonius, Claudius 25)

This is consistent with what we read in the Acts of the Apostles (18.2), where it says that during the time of Claudius a decree ordering that “the Jews should leave Rome” was issued.

There are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus contemporary to his life. Except for Suetonius and Josephus, the rest of the sources do not actually refer to Jesus, but rather to the Christian community. Even Suetonius does not refer to the name of Jesus directly, but to his title “Christ”. This suggests that the Christian community was already established in Rome some years before 50 CE; otherwise, it would not have merited the attention of these writers and certainly would not have been worthy of an imperial decree.

 

[shunyadragon]

The fact that you refer to Jesus Christ shows that you have never researched Jesus the man

You are muddling Divinity with History, just as Jayhawker may have been trying to tell you.

G-Mark was probably written circa 50-60CE and in the lifetimes of witnesses. It could well be the memoirs of Cephas.

You only have to study the history to perceive the man, but the Christ story is separate

This date you cite is an optimistic apologist date, the following is better dating, and the present of eye witnesses is very very hypothetical.

The Story Of The Storytellers - An Introduction To The Gospels | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as "oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and healings, his parables and teachings, and his death. Eventually some stories were written down. The first written documents probably included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings attributed to him.

Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark, since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated the gospel tradition."

It is factual history that there is zip, nada, negatory, and absolutely no historical record that Jesus Christ existed in his 'estimated life time.

 

[oldbadger]

See my more complete reference concerning the details of Josephus writings. It is a very very late corrupted reference.

I will repeat for your benefit:

From: Jesus Christ

Historical Non-Christian Sources
The earliest reference for the existence of Jesus outside Christian tradition is found in Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93 CE by Josephus (37-c.100 CE), a Roman Jewish scholar.

At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men, and joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah. (Antiquities, 18.3)

Scholarship almost unanimously rejects this passage, which seems to be either an addition or an alteration of the original text. The reason for this is the doubts triggered by the high praise given to Jesus by a Jewish author who is mostly concerned throughout his work in pleasing both Romans and Jews who were in conflict with the early Christians at that time. It may be the case that this passage is genuine in part, where it refers to Jesus' teaching, but was later edited to promote the Messianic message. Either way, as it stands, the passage raises suspicion.

A letter of Pliny the Younger (61-112 CE) asking the Roman Emperor Trajan for advice on the treatment of Christians has also come down to us. This document is dated around 110 CE, and it is the earliest surviving mention of the Christian community in Pagan literature. Tacitus, about 115 CE, writes about the persecution of Christians in Rome during the time of Nero.

[...] a race of men detested for their evil practices, and commonly called Chrestiani. The name was derived from Chrestus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, suffered under Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea. By that event the sect of which he was the founder received a blow which for a time checked the growth of a dangerous superstition; but it revived soon after, and spread with recruited vigour not only in Judea [...] but even in the city of Rome [...] (Durant, 281)

Tacitus goes on, talking about the bloody punishment ordered by Nero and suffered by the Christians. This paragraph is part of the description of the incidents linked to the Great Fire of the city of Rome which took place on July 18th in 64 CE.

The Roman historian Suetonius (c.69-c.122 CE) mentions a persecution and banishment of Christians around 50 CE during the reign of Claudius Caesar. This account was written about the same time as Tacitus wrote his.

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome. (Suetonius, Claudius 25)

This is consistent with what we read in the Acts of the Apostles (18.2), where it says that during the time of Claudius a decree ordering that “the Jews should leave Rome” was issued.

There are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus contemporary to his life. Except for Suetonius and Josephus, the rest of the sources do not actually refer to Jesus, but rather to the Christian community. Even Suetonius does not refer to the name of Jesus directly, but to his title “Christ”. This suggests that the Christian community was already established in Rome some years before 50 CE; otherwise, it would not have merited the attention of these writers and certainly would not have been worthy of an imperial decree.

None of that is about Jesus the man.

I told you about the Josephus entry.

G-Mark is the best reference to Historical Jesus, and anecdotes from Matthew, Luke and John assist.

Other conditions and circumstances from that time provide help with the research.

 

[oldbadger]

This date you cite is an optimistic apologist date, the following is better dating, and the present of eye witnesses is very very hypothetical.

The Story Of The Storytellers - An Introduction To The Gospels | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as "oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and healings, his parables and teachings, and his death. Eventually some stories were written down. The first written documents probably included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings attributed to him.

Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark, since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated the gospel tradition."

It is factual history that there is zip, nada, negatory, and absolutely no historical record that Jesus Christ existed in his 'estimated life time.

No.
I don't agree.

 

[oldbadger]

This date you cite is an optimistic apologist date, the following is better dating, and the present of eye witnesses is very very hypothetical.

The Story Of The Storytellers - An Introduction To The Gospels | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as "oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and healings, his parables and teachings, and his death. Eventually some stories were written down. The first written documents probably included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings attributed to him.

Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark, since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated the gospel tradition."

It is factual history that there is zip, nada, negatory, and absolutely no historical record that Jesus Christ existed in his 'estimated life time.

Start at the beginning.
Do you accept that the Baptist was redeeming Jews before they reached the Temple?

 

[sun rise]

There is a lot of debate using historical sources.

There is other evidence which is not based on written history and that is the testimony of figures such as Muhammad (Quran/Hadith) and Ramakrishna Paramhamsa.

This evidence will not be satisfying to those who focus on historical evidence. It will be satisfying to others.

 

[firedragon]

So are the writings of Josephus, which are known to be corrupted.

Wrong

 

[shmogie]

I am of the opinion that a man called 'Jesus' existed, he was probably intelligent with a commanding personality, which made him stand out from the crowd, but like the rest of us was a mixture of good and not so good. The gospels writers used Jesus as their figurehead when creating the character of the promised messiah. I believe much of what they attributed to Jesus was either highly exaggerated or untrue, like the virgin birth and the resurrection myths. However, it is possible some things were factual, like him having a high opinion of himself, a very human condition, if not a pleasant one. As a kid he supposedly went off to the Temple to 'impress' the elders with him knowledge, without asking his parents permission, which was very naughty. Maybe they grounded him until he was 30, when he came to public attention. Jesus could have been a clever magician, the so called miracles were possibly nothing more than magic tricks, which took in the gullible. The exorcism nonsense did him no credit at all, as it caused a herd of pigs to fall over a cliff, animal cruelty, and harmful to the pig farmer, who presumably didn't get any compensation. Telling people to leave their responsibilities to follow him was stupid and very wrong. I can see why he angered the religious hierarchy of the day, not that was any excuse for having him crucified.

All in all I think he would have been an interesting person to get to know, but certainly not deserving of worship and adoration.

You have an opinion, who cares ? I don´t. What is the purpose of posting it ? To get others to parrot your opinion ? Who cares ?

The old saying applies, opinions are like rectums, we all have one. They have no value, except to point out they are opinions.

Spit in your hand, what you hold is as valuable as your opinion.

 

[isowaves8]

Telling people to leave their responsibilities to follow him was stupid and very wrong. I can see why he angered the religious hierarchy of the day, not that was any excuse for having him crucified.

Jesus gave his followers a much larger responsibility -- one that had to do with securing eternity.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wrong

Wrong? Back it up. I cited a reference documenting this academic view and there are more. At present the writing of Josephus are quite late and the copies we have are much later. Even the records of his own life are not entirely reliable.