What Jesus existed?

[arthra]

Would it be exceptional for a poor itinerant rabbi to confront the combined might of the state and ecclesiastical authorities of His day?

 

[Daquine]

Yes it is. It is also entirely different than claiming that he did something exceptional.

I feel that if what Jesus did and taught during his time was enough to create a whole new religion based on just that, that is something he did, and to be the root of a whole new religion in this way is mighty exceptional.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Would it be exceptional for a poor itinerant rabbi to confront the combined might of the state and ecclesiastical authorities of His day?

It would be no more exceptional than David Koresh. And it would be in no way exceptional for the life and exploits of a cult leader to be significantly embellished after his death, particularly in a world that took magic and the supernatural for granted.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I feel that if what Jesus did and taught during his time was enough to create a whole new religion based on just that, that is something he did, and to be the root of a whole new religion in this way is mighty exceptional.

Which is fine so long as one recognizes that feeling something is not the same as having evidence warranting such feelings.

 

[PureX]

Yes it is. It is also entirely different than claiming that he did something exceptional.

No it isn't. There are reasons why this person became the center of religious attention, and came to stand as the symbol of a new religious paradigm, we just don't know exactly what those reasons are. This would not have happened to you or I. The man called "Jesus" must have done something to make himself such a catalyst.

 

[PureX]

It would be no more exceptional than David Koresh. And it would be in no way exceptional for the life and exploits of a cult leader to be significantly embellished after his death, particularly in a world that took magic and the supernatural for granted.

Koresh is exceptional. Destructive, insane, and nihilistic, but exceptionally so. Someone like him could certainly become the catalyst for a new world religion, in the right place and time.

 

[logician]

No it isn't. There are reasons why this person became the center of religious attention, and came to stand as the symbol of a new religious paradigm, we just don't know exactly what those reasons are. This would not have happened to you or I. The man called "Jesus" must have done something to make himself such a catalyst.

Actually, we do know the reasons, the literalist cult of Xianity invented a Jesus tale to try to gain believers from the gnostics and other cults of Xianity,

 

[PureX]

Actually, we do know the reasons, the literalist cult of Xianity invented a Jesus tale to try to gain believers from the gnostics and other cults of Xianity,

But you're only talking about a bit of the history of the Christian religion. This doesn't tell us anything about who Jesus was and what he said and did to become this religious lightening rod.

 

[PureX]

A new concept of God was introduced into the human concsciousness at that place and time. And something or someone that we now call "Jesus the Christ" ignited this sea-change in our God-concept. But all we have is a religious story that is obviously both biased and symbolic. So we don't know what actually happened. My own guess would be that someone, who eventually came to be called Jesus of Nazareth, probably did and said some of the things somewhat as reported. But as with all mythology, these actual events were altered and exaggerated (mythologized) to better represent a new religious paradigm that was awakening in the consciousness of the people of that time and place. The purpose of mythical stories, is after all to convey ideals, not to convey historical facts. So unfortunately the facts are lost to us. All we have now is the mythology.

 

[arthra]

It's pretty remarkable I think that Jesus is remembered by people when He was born in such humble circumstances and never aspired to being a military or political ruler and by worldly standards was really a "nothing" compared to the rulers such as Caesar Augustus or Herod the Great...

We really have only a few years from the life of Jesus and other than having been recorded to have written in the sand there are no books He wrote by His own hand..

It's an excellent point made made earlier that myths are meant to convey timeless figures which in part devolved on Jesus... there is also a historical perspective in Judaism and Christianity that you will not find in the mystery religions... or attempts to mythologize Jesus as in Gnosticism or Docetism.

There's a pretty fair article on the historicity of Jesus at

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It gives a pretty good over view of the issues.

- Art

 

[blueman]

As I have pointed out before, I don't believe a Jesus existed that remotely fit the gospel description of such a man/god. If you do believe a Jesus existed, what and who was this Jesus? Was he a mad lunatic running around claiming to be god, (a supply of those people are always around), was he a Jewish rabbi that was somehow misinterpreted and a god myth rose around him? Was he exactly like the gospels describe(with all their contradictions)? Do you care if he existed?

I'm interested to see what people think.

Jesus was the Son of God who dwelt among men in the flesh in time and space as the New Testament Gospels depicted. When you test ancient documents, you look for such things as multiple attestation, which the New Testament reflects through the independent testismony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Secondly, does it align with the people, places and things of that time. Archeaoligical evidence related to things depicted in the New Testament have been vetted thoroughly by exerts in the field. Third point, the gospels were written within 1 generation (most in the period of AD 50-60s), Paul Epistles pre-dated the synoptic Gospels) of said events ocurring applicable to the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, attested by several witnesses other than the gospel writers who could and would have disputed those events that were being written about. When you pursue textual criticism on any historical document applicable to ancient history, those are the factors many historians and scholars evaluate. They avoid anecdotal statements and opinions in absence of thorough research. Jesus is and was who He said He was, the Only Begotten Son of the Most High God.

 

[arthra]

Blueman..

Well you've summarize at least for me the loaded theological terminology that has accumulated over the centuries about Jesus .... this took time to build and accrue and wasn't always in it's present form and went through credal changes and so on...

Outside the Church doctrines what is there about Jesus that we can identify?

- Art

 

[Popeyesays]

Historically Jesus is recorded as a man. As a child he fell afoul of the decree of Herod to kill all male chldren of a certain age and his family fled to Egypt. When they came back, Jesus was about the age of a Bar Mitzvah and we have an anecdote of His debates with the elders of the community. Then we have nothing until Jesus of Nazareth appears as an intinerant rabbi who runs afoul of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin convinces the Roman governor that Jesus is a rebel against Rome and He is executed on the cross.

That much is biography--the rest is hagiography.

Regards,
Scott

 

[logician]

Historically Jesus is recorded as a man.
Regards,
Scott

Really, where?

 

[Popeyesays]

Josephus and the New Testament.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Smoke]

It's my considered opinion that Jesus existed, that he was a disciple of John the Baptist who became an itinerant Jewish sage and healer, and that some semblance of his teachings is to be found (along with a lot of fiction) in the synoptic gospels.

I don't believe the "spiritual" (read psychological) experiences of Paul have anything whatever to do with historical Jesus, or that the cosmic Christ of Pauline theology does, either. I don't know of any reason for thinking that Jesus was God incarnate or that he died for our sins or that any such redemption was necessary. I don't believe he was the Messiah or that anybody was or is or will be the Messiah, or that many (if any at all) of the "Messianic prophecies" in the Tanakh were intended as Messianic prophecies, or that the Jews had any kind of messianic hopes at all before the 4th century BCE or so (and probably later).

I don't believe that Jesus has much (if anything) to do with Christianity or with rabbinic Judaism. I think he's best understood, to the extent he can be understood at all, as an exponent of a form of Judaism that no longer exists and that we probably know, to the extent we know it at all, as Ebionism or something very like Ebionism. Our attempts to understand him are thus mostly historical and archaeological in nature.

I think that Jesus was a great teacher, and that it's worth taking the time to try to recover what we can from the scant sources we have. But I don't believe he was infallible or that anybody has ever been infallible.

I think it's a shame that Christianity has largely ignored the teachings of Jesus, and traded in everything genuine and worthwhile about Jesus for the bizarre and unpleasant mystery religion of Paul, and I think Jesus would probably have been shocked and dismayed if he had known what Christianity would make of him.

 

[Katzpur]

If you do believe a Jesus existed, what and who was this Jesus? Was he a mad lunatic running around claiming to be god, (a supply of those people are always around), was he a Jewish rabbi that was somehow misinterpreted and a god myth rose around him?

I believe He existed, and was the Son of God. I'm not sure what evidence there is to contradict my belief.

Was he exactly like the gospels describe(with all their contradictions)?

Which contradictions, specifically? It would be easier to answer this question if I knew where you were coming from.

Do you care if he existed?

Absolutely.

I'm interested to see what people think.

I'd be interested to know who from this same time period you do believe existed and why.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's my considered opinion that Jesus existed, that he was a disciple of John the Baptist who became an itinerant Jewish sage and healer, and that some semblance of his teachings is to be found (along with a lot of fiction) in the synoptic gospels.

I don't believe the "spiritual" (read psychological) experiences of Paul have anything whatever to do with historical Jesus, or that the cosmic Christ of Pauline theology does, either. I don't know of any reason for thinking that Jesus was God incarnate or that he died for our sins or that any such redemption was necessary. I don't believe he was the Messiah or that anybody was or is or will be the Messiah, or that many (if any at all) of the "Messianic prophecies" in the Tanakh were intended as Messianic prophecies, or that the Jews had any kind of messianic hopes at all before the 4th century BCE or so (and probably later).

I don't believe that Jesus has much (if anything) to do with Christianity or with rabbinic Judaism. I think he's best understood, to the extent he can be understood at all, as an exponent of a form of Judaism that no longer exists and that we probably know, to the extent we know it at all, as Ebionism or something very like Ebionism. Our attempts to understand him are thus mostly historical and archaeological in nature.

I think that Jesus was a great teacher, and that it's worth taking the time to try to recover what we can from the scant sources we have. But I don't believe he was infallible or that anybody has ever been infallible.

I think it's a shame that Christianity has largely ignored the teachings of Jesus, and traded in everything genuine and worthwhile about Jesus for the bizarre and unpleasant mystery religion of Paul, and I think Jesus would probably have been shocked and dismayed if he had known what Christianity would make of him.

Here here.....KUDOS.....:jam:

 

[logician]

"Which contradictions, specifically? It would be easier to answer this question if I knew where you were coming from.
"

You obviously have not carefully read the gospels.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You obviously have not carefully read the gospels.

This from the person who wrote:

As pointed out in another excellent post, Jesus, or Hesus, was an invented personage, after the First Council of Nicaea, by request of Constantine.

The willful ignorance required of such a statement is literally astounding. On what evidence do justify such nonsense, and on what grounds do you dismiss Paul, Acts, and Josephus as evidence of an historical Jesus? Reading carefully does not appear to be one of your strengths.