Your POV on the historical Jesus

[Jim]

I think that for the purposes of the authors, editors and compilers of the Bible, and for the best purposes it can serve, it doesn’t matter at all how much of it is actual history. Actual history didn’t even exist until after the Bible was compiled. I think that debating about its historicity is actually detrimental to its purposes.

 

[McBell]

What are you guys' opinions?

My opinion?
Honestly, completely irrelevant.
But then, I do not hold a belief that is dependent {real or imagined} upon it.

 

[McBell]

Actual history didn’t even exist until after the Bible was compiled.

One wonders if you can fathom how problematic this claim is.

 

[sooda]

I think that for the purposes of the authors, editors and compilers of the Bible, and for the best purposes it can serve, it doesn’t matter at all how much of it is actual history. Actual history didn’t even exist until after the Bible was compiled. I think that debating about its historicity is actually detrimental to its purposes.

Didactic literature is not an historical account.

 

[Jim]

One wonders if you can fathom how problematic this claim is.

What I mean by that is current academic conceptions of history.

 

[McBell]

What I mean by that is current academic conceptions of history.

for example?

 

[sooda]

for example?

The OT was redacted and amended many times over the years.

 

[McBell]

The OT was redacted and amended many times over the years.

As was the NT.
I fail to see how that is an example of history not existing before the compilation of the Bible.

 

[james bond]

The search for the historical Jesus is well known to be one of the most problematic issues in Religious Studies - it's really hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, can be safely asserted about the historical Jesus.

What are you guys' opinions?
Did he exist?
What was he like?
What did he do and say?

 

[leov]

The search for the historical Jesus is well known to be one of the most problematic issues in Religious Studies - it's really hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, can be safely asserted about the historical Jesus.

What are you guys' opinions?
Did he exist?
What was he like?
What did he do and say?

He existed. Not according to the church that emerged in Rome and that is why a lot of sources were wiped out.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The search for the historical Jesus is well known to be one of the most problematic issues in Religious Studies - it's really hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, can be safely asserted about the historical Jesus.

The problem for me here is what constitutes a historical Jesus. How much of the story has to be correct to say that such a person existed? If we remove the supernatural claims alone, is what is left a historical Jesus? Probably for most people. How about if it turns out that he wasn't born in Bethlehem. but the rest apart from the miracles actually happened? Is that enough? Maybe. Suppose that he didn't have apostles with him most of the time or any of the time? Is what's left enough?

Since information regarding these alleged events is likely to be impossible to come by, most such questions must remain unanswered.Were his parents really named Joseph and Mary? Was he really a carpenter? Did he really curse a fig tree?

The other issue already alluded to in this thread asks what difference it makes whether part or all of the story is fiction if Jesus was not a deity whatever else he was, myth or legend. What difference does it make whether the words attributed to Jesus were spoken by a man named Jesus or somebody with a different name?

We're sometimes reminded that Socrates, like Jesus, wrote nothing himself, but we have little trouble accepting the historicity of Socrates. My answer there is the same - I don't care whether the words attributed to Socrates were actually written by a mman named Socrates, Plato, Norman, or anything else. Either the words are meaningful to you or not, whoever the author.

The Gospels are presented as an article of faith - you can't easily dismiss them

Why can't I dismiss them by faith? How is that any less valid than accepting them by faith, or any other idea?

I have no doubt contradictions are put into scripture for a reason
- just note the strange discrepancy in Jesus' genealogy.

The reason for the contradictions is likely the fact of multiple authors not collaborating with one another and creating conflicting accounts, as with the two genealogies or the two creation stories

 

[BilliardsBall]

The search for the historical Jesus is well known to be one of the most problematic issues in Religious Studies - it's really hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, can be safely asserted about the historical Jesus.

What are you guys' opinions?
Did he exist?
What was he like?
What did he do and say?

Universally accepted by scholars, except for a handful of fringe lunatic scholars:

Jesus of Nazareth preached, claiming to be the Messiah of Tanakh prophecy, and was baptized by John in the Jordan River, and died by crucifixion in Jerusalem, and His followers preached Him as resurrected.

My opinion: The 27 NT books are wholly valid, inspired, and THE source for any details anyone wants about Jesus the person or His ministry.

Thanks.

 

[Milton Platt]

The search for the historical Jesus is well known to be one of the most problematic issues in Religious Studies - it's really hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, can be safely asserted about the historical Jesus.

What are you guys' opinions?
Did he exist?
What was he like?
What did he do and say?

From an atheistic point of view....it does not matter to me if he existed as a person or not. I can easily accept that a person with that name existed in the middle east at some point in history and that he may have been crucified by the Romans, like so many others.
It is the claim to miracles and divine origin that needs to be verified.

 

[Terry Sampson]

a book that will make The Passover Plot seem the last refuge of theological ultra-conservatism.

LOL!

By the Romans. I can’t believe I said that!

Neither can a few others of us.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

The historic Jesus was for me what most historians would agree on. Jesus was a real man, an itinerant religious teacher who was baptised and crucified by the Romans. His followers clearly believed Him to be the Promised Jewish Messiah. Although I share that belief with my Christian brothers and sisters it is a matter of faith that He was rather than historical fact. I believe the Gospels to be mostly authentic.

Edit: Jesus was crucified by the Romans, not the Jews.

Yeah, this is the historical Jesus. Jesus was not killed by the Jews. He was handed over by the Jews. A proper reading of the Bible reveals this (sorry, Hitler).

However, John tells us an interesting detail though.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6There came a man who was sent from God. His name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify about the Light, so that through him everyone might believe. 8He himself was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. 9The true Light who gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. 11He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, 13children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God. 14The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John tells us two interesting things, first that Jesus predates the historical Jesus, and is eternal like God. And that Jesus took on human flesh. So what was he before that?

10 Christ-Like Figures Who Pre-Date Jesus : In5D

Well, you decide (also, I dunno why they chose Horus, Osiris was the one split into several pieces who came back to life).

 

[ChristineM]

I am pretty sure Jesus existed, he is mentioned in the Talmud.

Whether he existed as described in the bible i find very doubtful.

It is my belief having done just a little study of the period that he was the illigitimate child of a Roman soldier who grew up in an oppressive time, dominated by Roman rule. Perhaps he became a member of the 4th philosophy or/and, the sicarii. Captured with the aid of Saulus he was executed for anarchy.

The christian faith was originally built by a guilt ridden Saulus based on the works of John the Baptiser. Jesus did not make the bible until many years later.

 

[sooda]

As was the NT.
I fail to see how that is an example of history not existing before the compilation of the Bible.

The Bible was not intended as history. Its teaching narratives and morality tales. Just like Aesop's fables are teaching stories only with animals.

It doesn't diminish the value or importance of scripture.. its just not history or science.

Maybe the earliest historians were Herodotus and Josephus..

 

[loverofhumanity]

The search for the historical Jesus is well known to be one of the most problematic issues in Religious Studies - it's really hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, can be safely asserted about the historical Jesus.

What are you guys' opinions?
Did he exist?
What was he like?
What did he do and say?

Hi. I have no problems at all with that for many reasons.

2.3 billion Christians worldwide who believe in Jesus

Best selling book in the world - the Holy Bible.

1.8 billion Muslims worldwide who believe in Jesus

The Holy Quran confirms Jesus existence. Over a billion sold.

The Babi Faith recognises Jesus existence as a Prophet of God

The Baha’i Faith recognises Jesus as a Prophet of God.

So over 4 billion people or more than half the worlds population accept Jesus existence.

A non existent person cannot have achieved worldwide recognition such as this.

The New Testament I believe is the proof Jesus existed.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The search for the historical Jesus is well known to be one of the most problematic issues in Religious Studies - it's really hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, can be safely asserted about the historical Jesus.

What are you guys' opinions?
Did he exist?
What was he like?
What did he do and say?

Did King Arthur exist? Probably in some form, but whoever he was, his story got embellished as time went on. This happens to historical figures quite regularly.

Same for Jesus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The search for the historical Jesus is well known to be one of the most problematic issues in Religious Studies - it's really hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, can be safely asserted about the historical Jesus.

What are you guys' opinions?
Did he exist?
What was he like?
What did he do and say?

I think the question of whether there's a historical Jesus is mostly an academic curiosity and not really relevant to whether the Jesus character(s) of modern Christianity is worth taking seriously.

The vast majority of the Jesus character - especially all the supernatural elements - seems to me to be a clear fabrication. Whether these mythic elements were glommed onto a real historical figure or whether Jesus is entirely myth from root to stem doesn't really matter to me. It's like arguing about whether there's a real grain of sand at the centre of a pearl; the sand isn't the part of the pearl that anyone but a biologist cares about.