Was Jesus Only Human?

[Augustus]

Buddha's writing were compiled at conference shortly after his death including supernatural references surrounding his birth and life with no corresponding independent outside historical records that Buddha ever existed,

Have you got any evidence that "Buddha's writing were compiled at conference shortly after his death"?

People can't even agree on when he lived after all, and it's generally assumed it was an oral tradition for centuries before the first writings.

 

[shmogie]

Not a meaningful coherent response.

Not one you care to respond to.

You recognize that there is a subject where someone else might have the knowledge you pretend to have.

Best thing to do when you bring a knife to a gun fight is to run.

Your prudence and speed are noted.

 

[shunyadragon]

Have you got any evidence that "Buddha's writing were compiled at conference shortly after his death"?

By the evidence that is the earliest known existence of Buddha's writings were presented at this conference. The same is true of the New Testament writings as the earliest known gospel is Mark dated ~65 to 70 CE.

People can't even agree on when he lived after all, and it's generally assumed it was an oral tradition for centuries before the first writings.

This appears to be an aside to our discussion, and not a direct response.

In the case of Lao Tzu and Buddha it was not centuries. Yes, oral traditions are likely how The gospels, Lao Tzu writings, and Buddha's writings at least in part likely evolved. in the first centuries after their lives.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not one you care to respond to.

You recognize that there is a subject where someone else might have the knowledge you pretend to have.

Best thing to do when you bring a knife to a gun fight is to run.

Your prudence and speed are noted.

Unable to to respond to a vague, anecdotal response shrouded in 'Blue Smoke and Mirrors.'

 

[shmogie]

Unable to to respond to a vague, anecdotal response shrouded in 'Blue Smoke and Mirrors.'

LOL ! There is significant historical evidence, and enough of it, to lead most scholars to believe Jesus did, in fact, exist.

There you go, dispute it if you think you can.

 

[shunyadragon]

LOL ! There is significant historical evidence, and enough of it, to lead most scholars to believe Jesus did, in fact, exist.

Not sure how you rate historical evidence, but yes, most historians consider Jesus to be a historical figure, but the religious claims of Christianity concerning Jesus Christ are considered the history of the religious beliefs of Christianity, and not factual documented history.

There you go, dispute it if you think you can.

Actually you are emotionally going beyond the subject of the thread, my responses, and it has nothing to do with my beliefs.

I have made no specific claims of my beliefs, nonetheless I do believe Jesus existed as a historical person.

As far as this thread goes, I am addressing the evidence and different possibilities as to who and what Jesus was, and in reality from an objective less biased perspective there are possibilities and options, and Jesus being 'only human' is a possibility

 

[dianaiad]

The obvious response would be:

I do not reject Pliny (or, for that matter, Tacitus) as evidence of Christians. I simply reject it as sufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus.​

I find the response wanting, but that makes it no less obvious.

The thing that puzzles me is that there is ANY historical evidence for Jesus. He was not, after all, very important. He was not the emperor, or a Roman citizen. He wasn't in politics. He wasn't the governor or ruler of anything. He was the son of a carpenter who went around (as many others did) for three years....a very short period of time, actually, preaching to His fellow Jews.

Christianity as a troublesome belief system didn't show up for nearly a century. Until then it was a very small, very 'Jewish" group; a cult, if you will, a real minority group that honestly didn't show so much as a squeak in the chorus of conquered nations. Utterly unknown, utterly unimportant.

We don't have any historical evidence of the existence of many, if any, of the Jews who lived at the time. We know that Jews lived then, of course...but what evidence do we have of the existence of any one of them?

To compare the life of Jesus to the life of, say, Tiberius Ceasar is ludicrous. Tiberius was famous from his birth; great expectations, family connections, power...of course we would have a huge amount of historical evidence of his existence. But an itinerant preacher from a conquered and bothersome nation with very different customs and beliefs? No comparison there.

In fact, that He is mentioned at all by Pliny or Tacitus or whoever is rather amazing. Why in the world would they mention Him? He was, certainly at the time, utterly unimportant to anybody but His followers, and His followers wrote about Him in stuff that was canonized...and therefore automatically dismissed by you and yours.

I don't get it. Why is it so important that He not exist, even as a mere man who went around preaching some?

 

[shunyadragon]

The thing that puzzles me is that there is ANY historical evidence for Jesus. He was not, after all, very important. He was not the emperor, or a Roman citizen. He wasn't in politics. He wasn't the governor or ruler of anything. He was the son of a carpenter who went around (as many others did) for three years....a very short period of time, actually, preaching to His fellow Jews.

Based on the NT description the earthshaking miracle working Messiah should obviously be recorded by those at the time including the Romans.

 

[Augustus]

By the evidence that is the earliest known existence of Buddha's writings.

Earliest Buddhist writings are from the 1st C BC though.

The same is true of the New Testament writings as the earliest known gospel is Mark dated ~65 to 70 CE.

Multiple Christian texts can be dated to within a few decades of Jesus' death, this is not the case with Buddhism, although later writings may preserve part of an earlier oral tradition.

In the case of Lao Tzu and Buddha it was not centuries. Yes, oral traditions are likely how The gospels, Lao Tzu writings, and Buddha's writings at least in part likely evolved. in the first centuries after their life.

For written sources, it was c500 years for Lao Tzu and c300 years for Buddha.

Jesus c20 years

 

[dianaiad]

Based on the NT description the earthshaking miracle working Messiah should obviously be recorded by those at the time including the Romans.

Why?

It seems to me that the miracles Jesus wrought were very local ones. Nobody else knew about them, or cared.

To decide that he didn't exist at all BECAUSE He SHOULD have been notorious is a stand based as much upon faith as any that He was divine.

Get a grip. If He existed as a simple human preacher, that doesn't mean that you have to believe He was the
Son of God and all the other stuff claimed for Him. To be honest, it seems to me that it is far more logical that he DID exist, at least as a mere human, than that a group of people just made Him up...

That makes no sense at all. There are groups that are based upon the life of some hero/demi-god/teacher/leader.....but when you read about them, the existence of that leader is 'long ago' and 'far away,' but certainly 'long ago.'

But the early Christians talk about Jesus as having lived IN THEIR LIFETIMES, and knew people who were related to, or knew, him. He is placed specifically, solidly....

It seems to me that the unreasonable claim here is that He did NOT exist at all, That makes utterly no sense. I can understand a claim that he was just a charismatic preacher and in no sense divine, and that the miracles ascribed to him weren't real. I don't agree with that, but I understand that.

I do NOT understand this insistence that he didn't exist at all. Really...if he didn't, how DID Christianity come to be? I mean, really....that makes every single conspiracy theory about aliens today look very, very tame.

 

[shunyadragon]

Have you got any evidence that "Buddha's writing were compiled at conference shortly after his death"?

People can't even agree on when he lived after all, and it's generally assumed it was an oral tradition for centuries before the first writings.

You appear to agree concerning the problem of the historicity of the life of Buddha..

The Historicity of the first or possibly the second Council is generally accepted even though we do not have the actual writings presented. The historicity of some of participants at the First Council is accepted. As with the history and dating of the scripture of Christianity the history is not resolved. There are as many clouds over the history Christian scripture as with the origins of Buddhist scripture. That is the main point of my argument is in other religions have similar problems of historicity as Christianity. Actuall the Pentateuch of Judaism has more problems of provenance and authorship than Christianity, Taoism or Buddhism,


From: First Buddhist council - Wikipedia
Historicity

Tradition states that the First Council lasts for seven months.[9] Scholars doubt, however, whether the entire canon was really recited during the First Council,[1] because the early texts contain different accounts on important subjects such as meditation.[10] It may be, though, that early versions were recited of what is now known as the Vinaya-piṭaka and Sutta-piṭaka.[11] Nevertheless, many scholars, from the late 19th century onward, have considered the historicity of the First Council improbable. Some scholars, such as orientalists Louis de La Vallée-Poussin and D.P. Minayeff, thought there must have been assemblies after the Buddha's death, but considered only the main characters and some events before or after the First Council historical.[12][13] Other scholars, such as Buddhologist André Bareau and Indologist Hermann Oldenberg, considered it likely that the account of the First Council was written after the Second Council, and based on that of the second, since there were not any major problems to solve after the Buddha's death, or any other need to organize the First Council.[14][15] On the other hand, archaeologist Louis Finot, Indologist E. E. Obermiller and to some extent Indologist Nalinaksha Dutt thought the account of the First Council was authentic, because of the correspondences between the Pāli texts and the Sanskrit traditions.[16] Indologist Richard Gombrich, following Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali's arguments, states that "it makes good sense to believe ... that large parts of the Pali Canon do preserve for us the Buddha-vacana, 'the Buddha's words', transmitted to us via his disciple Ānanda and the First Council".[17]"

 

[shunyadragon]

Why?

It seems to me that the miracles Jesus wrought were very local ones. Nobody else knew about them, or cared.

Jerusalem was not local, because it was the center the Kingdom under Roman rule at the time, and the reports of many ressurrected appearing to many . . .

Matthew 27:52-53

"and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

. and the description of the death on the cross by Jesus was surely earth shaking.

His miracles were numerous as reported, and yes the Romans, at least would have recorded these events, and they did not record on word; Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

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.

If you were once a Christian, why were you not responsible enough to know that Paul’s epistles predate the Gospels, so the gospelers could not have “created the character of the Messiah?” Perhaps you should have learned more of the theology and literary content of the Gospels before you gave them the gate? If your post is any indication of the extent of your exegetical skills, your retreat from Xy was quite possibly ill- informed.

 

[MJFlores]

None of that is credible, imo.

Where?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

I am doing no such thing.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

You can argue your "time of the Gentile" but this time was when the Gentiles were brought
into what had been an essentially Jewish experience. But more the point - the end of those
times would be shown, said Jesus, when Jerusalem is back in Jewish hands.
Luke 21:24
"Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

Ok. How is Jerusalem in Jewish hands? The Jews cannot go and pray to their God on the Temple Mount. So how is Jerusalem in Jewish hands?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[whirlingmerc]

<yawn>

ignore-list​

</yawn>

Jesus claimed to be more than human

The Jews said 'you are not 50 years old and you have seen Abraham?"
Jesus response was wrong question Abraham saw me!!

 

[whirlingmerc]

I am doing no such thing.

Jesus teaching is not consistent at all with Jesus being a mere man

Judgement at the end of the age was based on whether Jesus knew the people before him or not. That would be a strange thing for a mere man to say.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

You can argue your "time of the Gentile" but this time was when the Gentiles were brought
into what had been an essentially Jewish experience. But more the point - the end of those
times would be shown, said Jesus, when Jerusalem is back in Jewish hands.
Luke 21:24
"Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

So, what is your problem? Jerusalem is not in Jewish hands.

Good-Ole-Rebel;

 

[PruePhillip]

So, what is your problem? Jerusalem is not in Jewish hands.

Good-Ole-Rebel;

Jerusalem was back in Jewish hands in 1967.
This, incidentally, was the time for tremendous foment in
Western societies, a time of challenging the "old" moral
order. Many of the social issues/problems we face today
had their genesis in the 1960's.

ps how hard is it in America to buy a rebel flag?
My family had plantations in the south and fought in the
Civil War. But get a flag? Found one, eventually, in a
Gettysburg tourist shop.