I've been studying the topic of an historical Jesus for some time now and I agree with poster "Bona Dea" that most biblical scholars believe Jesus was a real person. However, I remain unconvinced that this lends any credibility to the claim. Their livelihood depends on it.

What I have found so far, is that biblical scholars are acutely aware of the issues surrounding the questionable sources and general lack of evidence for an historical Jesus. They lay it all out in chapter 1 of their many books.

At the end of these chapters 1, the skeptical reader thinks, "OK, case closed". But that doesn't get you a book. A pamphlet, maybe. From an evidentiary point of view, there isn't much more of substance.

So the rest of these books is made up of historical narratives about the time and place Jesus is supposed to have lived. What life was like in Galilee, Jewish culture, the Romans, religion, etc. This is then applied to the supposed historical Jesus by a very neat magical trick. Here's one example from Helen Bond's "The Historical Jesus. A guide for the perplexed" which I am currently reading:

"How can we be so sure that Jesus was a miraculous healer? First, Jesus is presented as a healer in all major strands of the tradition (Mark, Q, Special Matthean and Lukan material, John)" (p. 102).

In other words, because the Bible says so. By the way, "second" (Josephus) and "third" (the gospels again) are not much better.

I have come to look upon the field of historical Jesus studies much the same way as Greek or Latin literature studies. Academically interesting to a small group of stuffy classicists but little to no relation to the real world.

In the case of Jesus, however, there's Christianity to contend with. Next to the gospels, Christianity is the other major argument for the existence of an historical Jesus because in the minds of Jesus scholars, it is inconceivable that a large religious movement should be based on the adventures of a fictional character. Well, maybe not inconceivable but at least less likely than if it were based on a real person.

Actually they would probably make more money if they proved Jesus didnt exist. In addition, scholars do not start with a foregone conclusion and find evidence to prove it. It doesnt work like this. The fact is, that movements have founders. In the case of the Jesus movement the choices are a convoluted conspiracy theory or a historical Jesus. Jesus makes a lot more sense and the evidence and sources support that. What on earth is so hard to believe? Jesus started a movement.He was charismatic and loved by his followers. He was executed. His followers kept the movement growing and he became mythologized.It happened all the time especially in the superstitious ancient world. The alternative is Paul or someone making it up for some unknown reason and convincing people that this made up person who supposedly lived in their time and in their area was real. No one bothered to check and no one from the areas in question bothered to say,"Hey, I lived there and this never happened". On top of that, Paul spends his whole life preaching about this fake person and living off other people in poverty when he could have had a respectable career and being imprisoned, flogged and eventually dying for this. Why? It makes no sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2016 05:59AM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually they would probably make more money if they proved Jesus didnt exist.

That is kind of the default position for most of humanity, it doesn't require proof.


> In addition, scholars do not start with a foregone conclusion and find evidence to prove it.

It is my contention that biblical scholars do something similar. They start by saying that next to nothing is known about Jesus because there are next to no reliable sources, and then proceed as if this weren't the case.


> In the case of the Jesus movement the choices are a convoluted conspiracy theory or a historical Jesus.

That is a false dichotomy which lends undue weight to your second option. There is no compelling reason why a movement based on/devoted to a mythical person should necessarily be the result of a conspiracy.


> Jesus makes a lot more sense and the evidence and sources support that.

Based on the evidence and sources, Jesus does not make more sense as an historical person than as a mythical figure. There just isn't enough evidence either way.


> What on earth is so hard to believe? Jesus started a movement.

That would be the first thing that is, indeed, a matter of belief. At most, one could assume that Jesus had followers. Whether he intended to start a movement, or actually did so: zero evidence.


> He was charismatic and loved by his followers.

Impossible to verify since there is no evidence from followers who actually claim to have known Jesus who could confirm this.


> He was executed.

Again, no direct evidence.


> His followers kept the movement growing and he became mythologized.

No argument there.


> It happened all the time especially in the superstitious ancient world.

This is an interesting paradoxical argument that I found in the Jesus literature as well. As it turns out, there is relatively good evidence for a few other charismatics and/or movements, although they had little impact. And yet, for Jesus, who is said to have aroused the attention of the highest political and religious leaders of his time, there is no such evidence.

What is more likely: that a fictional Jesus-character was modeled after real, documented historical persons, or that a bunch of low-impact historical nobodies are relatively well documented but the one guy who made it big - zero, zip, nada, nothing?


> The alternative is Paul or someone making it up for some unknown reason and convincing people that this made up person who supposedly lived in their time and in their area was real. No one bothered to check and no one from the areas in question bothered to say,"Hey, I lived there and this never happened".

This is a nice apologetic tactic. How about you apply the same rigorous standards of proof to the pro-historical Jesus arguments?


> On top of that, Paul spends his whole life preaching about this fake person and living off other people in poverty when he could have had a respectable career and being imprisoned, flogged and eventually dying for this. Why? It makes no sense.

This is the same line of reasoning employed by Mormons to prove that Joseph Smith was a prophet and sealed his testimony with his blood.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2016 06:41AM by rt.

Couldnt disagree more.

No problem!

My personal belief/spirituality/religion...Jesus existed and had something important to say....

I should start my own religion. I could use the tax breaks....

One more point.Most of the scholars do not believe Jesus was the Son Of God,born of a virgin, a miracle worker or that he was resurrected. That grew up later.Also,as student of Greek and Latin, I find your characterization of those fields a bit insulting. It may not be of interest to you, but it is of interest to a lot of people who are not 'stuffy'. Much of western society is based on classical ideas. It is who we are. That makes it pretty important

As far as the geographical and cultural information, it is not filler as you seem to be implying. In order to understand a person you need to understand the culture in which they lived. 1st century Palestine was very different than our culture. It was a rural society where most people were very poor and overtaxed. They had little hope. There was great disparity between the rich minority and poor majority. They were occupied by a foreign power they despised and hoped God would end their suffering. Most people were illiterate.It was an oral society.These facts are important in understanding Jesus. Historians of all eras routinely add this kind of information because it is important.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2016 09:27PM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One more point. Most of the scholars do not believe Jesus was the Son Of God, born of a virgin, a miracle worker or that he was resurrected. That grew up later.

So? The fact that some scholars do not believe in magic does not, in itself, strengthen the case for an historical Jesus.


> Also,as student of Greek and Latin, I find your characterization of those fields a bit insulting. It may not be of interest to you, but it is of interest to a lot of people who are not 'stuffy'. Much of western society is based on classical ideas. It is who we are. That makes it pretty important.

I guess that would be your second "one more point" :-)

No offense intended, you gotta give me some retorical leeway here. As someone with six years of classical training at an all-boys catholic school, who can still recite large chunks of Caesar, Virgil and Cicero from memory, I fully agree with you.


> As far as the geographical and cultural information, it is not filler as you seem to be implying.

It is filler to the extent that it informs us as to what kind of person Jesus would have been, and in which historical context he would have lived - provided he did indeed exist. It does not inform us who he actually was and what he actually did and said. Most pro-historical Jesus books I have read on the subject so far agree that we know next to nothing about that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2016 07:07AM by rt.

I took the class for "undergrad" credit--even though I already had my BA--because it was at night; I was working, and grad credit would've involved an extra two papers; this was to renew my teaching certificate.

The professor was a delightful young woman who talked quite a bit about "Egyptian Religion," and the elements I found troubling were the story of Osiris (the Resurrection) and the Eucharist (eating the blood and flesh of a god in order to achieve elements of the divine). She also mentioned the story of Moses had appeared much earlier in myths that orginated in the Sinai.

When I added those "realities" to material presented here that spoke of tales of both Krisha and Buddha being conceived of virgins, then there wasn't much left.

To wit...

http://www.nairaland.com/193520/there-many-other-virgin-births

>The major problem with Christianity and many other religions is the absolute lack of independent confirmation of the stories, if independent accounts exists, believers are asked to disregard any story in conflict with the story presented within the holy book, so the holy book, becomes the source and proof of itself, an authority unto itself.

Finally, none of the stories about Jesus are contemporary; they were all written years after he is supposed to have lived. Having seen the faith-promoting shinola that regularly comes out of Utah, I have no problem retaining a healthy skepticism about claims that originated within a Neolithic culture that abounded in what we now realize are myths and superstitions.

In terms of the existence of a historic Jesus, for me the important issue is to retain an open mind. That also allows one to question the "divine nature" of actions such as "turning the other cheek" or "fogiving genuinely evil sorts"; if I am a heretic at loggerheads with the Almighty for these reasons, then so be it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2016 03:44PM by SL Cabbie.

As a farmboy who didn't like farm work one morning on a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring I retired to the woods near our farm to make an attempt to escape work. I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down, to avoid detection by the other workers who would come looking for me to put me back to work, and must have tripped over a rock. I had scarcely done so, when I must have had a concussion or a seizure as I was immediately seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

At the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction then just at this moment of great alarm of my dizziness state it was as if I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. When the light rested upon me I thought to myself that if I claimed to have seen God and Jesus that I could become a Minister and not have to farm work anymore. So that's what I did and because some people believed me then I was able to make a living in religion.

rt wrote:
>In the case of Jesus, however, there's Christianity to contend with. Next to the gospels, Christianity is the other major argument for the existence of an historical Jesus because in the minds of Jesus scholars, it is inconceivable that a large religious movement should be based on the adventures of a fictional character. Well, maybe not inconceivable but at least less likely than if it were based on a real person.

Then, by the same token, Krshna must have been a real person, since there is a large religious movement that worships him. His followers can even point to the place where he danced with the girls herding the cows, and other events in his life.

And Odin, Thor, Freya and the other Norse gods. I guess they must have been real people. (You can look up Odin af Asgard on familysearch, and see his genealogical information.)

Nobody doubts that Quetzalcoatl was a real person. His worship was a major part of Aztec religion. So Jesus must have been real, too.

Ormazd, the god of the Zoroastrians, must have existed as a real person, since a major religion worships him.

/sarcasm

IOW, I don't see how the existence of a religion proves the existence of the person that religion worships.

One difference is that Jesus is located in real time. From
around 3 BCE to around 30 CE., and in a real place. He ends up
killed by Roman authorities at the behest of the local Jewish
leaders. Krishna's mythology does not have him born during
historical time, but more in mythological time.

Jesus is supposedly born during the reign of Caesar Augustus,
etc. These tend to make the Jesus story a claim about a real,
historical person rather than a mythological God.

So you are saying that the Jesus mythology is more believable than the Krshna mythology because it has two contradictory statements about the god's birth, and other mutuallly contradictory statements about events in his life, whereas the Krshna mythology does not?

That the gospels place the events in Jesus' life in a historical period makes the narrative of those events more likely? If so, would you say the events in the life of Scarlett O'Hara are more likely to be factual because they are placed in a historical period?

What about the dates of birth of Odin af Asgard (which you will find at the LDS website familysearch)? Does that make his actual existence more likely?

Would you agree that the fact that a religion has mythology about the life and times of its god does not necessarily make it more likely that the god exists or existed? Especially if the only direct sources of those "facts" are the religion itself and its adherents?

RPackham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you are saying that the Jesus mythology is more
> believable than the Krshna mythology because . . .

I'm not saying anything about the mythology other than one is
more likely than the other to have been inspired by an actual
person. That there are contradictory accounts in the gospels
in no way means it's less likely that the mythologies were
inspired by a real person.

A popular hypothesis among biblical scholars is that Jesus was
an itinerant Jewish apocalyptic preacher who taught that the
world was going to end soon and that people had to hold closer
to the Law of Moses (suitably interpreted). Then after this
Messiah-candidate is arrested and executed by the Romans as a
criminal (something that was definitely NOT supposed to happen
to the Messiah) his followers changed the religion OF Jesus to
a religion ABOUT Jesus. All of a sudden Jesus, himself, was a
god. In the process they alter his teachings to fit the
viewpoint, and the requisite miracles appear in the story as
would be expected. By the time the Gospel writers start
recording the "oral traditions," a lot has morphed and been
added.

I find this eminently reasonable. To me it fits the record
better than someone sitting down and inventing the religion out
of whole cloth.

Although the claims of Scientologists about the achievements of
L. Ron Hubbard have been proven false (but not to Scientologists).
I find it reasonable to assume that there was an L. Ron Hubbard.

If the events happened in historic times and there are multiple attestation, yes, it does make it a lot more likely

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the events happened in historic times and there
> are multiple attestation, yes, it does make it a
> lot more likely

But there are NOT "multiple attestation[s]" - there are four gospels, which either copy each other or contradict each other. And that's pretty well it, unless you count also the many much later apocryphal gospels which are obvious fictional propaganda.

Personally, I think the Jesus stories may well be based on a real person (see my FAQ "What about Jesus?" at http://packham.n4m.org/jesus.htm ), but the evidence is not very strong, and the details can no longer be derived from the evidence we have, such as it is.

There are four gospels,Acts, the Epistles, the rest of the NT,Josephus,Tacitus and Pliny.

Exactly, the others go.back to prehistory and even to the stone age

Thank you, Richard. Those are my thoughts as well.

I even watched a Canadian paranormal show where people relate experiences they've had with the paranormal.

One young woman from India recalled the two times that she was visited by Krishna, blue skin and all. She sounded extremely credible and sure of what she was saying.

I personally suspect the Jesus mythology was built from a composite of things: legends, aspects from real people maybe, and more made up stuff to incorporate what the various groups of people at the time needed for their beliefs to be included.

I have insufficient facts. There are a lot of things about the Jesus story that don't pass the sniff test. I respect the research and opinions of scholars, but I also know the difference between opinions of scholars and factual evidence.

Bertrand Russell says:

"Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found."

And

"Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric."

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I personally suspect the Jesus mythology was built
> from a composite of things: legends, aspects from
> real people maybe, and more made up stuff to
> incorporate what the various groups of people at
> the time needed for their beliefs to be included.

The question of "was Jesus a real person" and "are the gospels
an accurate account of Jesus" are two separate questions. One
can accept that Jesus was a "real person" without accepting
that he was born of a virgin, walked on water, multiplied the
loaves and fishes, raised the dead, etc. One prevalent view of
biblical scholars is that Jesus was an itinerant Jewish
preacher who got himself crucified, and a later mythology was
built up about him which transformed his religious teachings
about God into a religion about him.

Exactly, but the mythicists cant seem to separated the divine Christ from a human Jesus

baura Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The question of "was Jesus a real person" and "are the gospels an accurate account of Jesus" are two separate questions.

From what I can see in the literature, these are not separate questions. The synoptic gospels are the most important sources for information about Jesus, although these days, other sources like the gospels of Peter, John and Thomas are gaining traction.

Those who believe Jesus was a real person, primarily do this because they consider the gospels a reliable source. Of course, they have to do some extremely selective reading because for the most part, the gospels contradict each other on virtually every factual statement.

And they believe.Tacitus,Pliny and Josephus as well as Pauland other NT writers who wrote independently

rt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Their livelihood depends on it.

Not really. There are scholars of Homer whose livelihood
doesn't depend on whether Odysseus was a real person or not.

Biblical scholars study the documents in their historical
settings. It is not necessary for Jesus to have been a "real
person" for them to do this.

I meant that you can't be a biblical scholar if you limit yourself to the available evidence. You'd be done in one semester. So, to work in this field, you will necessarily spend your life expounding contextual issues and theorizing what that would have meant for an historical Jesus.

That is why every generation reinvents Jesus to fit with the prevailing understanding of the historical context, which in turn also changes from generation to generation.

I think it was Albert Schweitzer who said something along the lines of how each generation's understanding of Jesus is really how they see themselves.

rt said:


"...along the lines of how each generation's understanding of Jesus is really how they see themselves."


This is an important concept related to this discussion, IMO. Thanks for including that, rt.


It matters because we can see how more and more people seem to be conceding that at least the divinity claims are fabricated.

(edited for one letter typo)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2016 07:10PM by dagny.

Does it matter whether Jesus actually existed or not, if I don't believe he could stop the world from spinning, put out the flames of every star, make the oceans become barren deserts or bring cold, dead humans back to life?

If I don't believe he could do all of those things, and I don't, he may or may not have really existed, but mythical stories of tradition and authority continue to plague us.

If I grant that a human named "Jesus" walked the planet, how does that go to him having god powers?

If Jesus didn't have god powers, it is just another story of a human, sans artifact other than tradition and authority. If he was not a god, that would have made him a philosopher, a subject that many Christians belittle.

I see Christianity as being the result of so many "tribe-less" peoples in need of a Union. Certain leaders, like Paul, the prison "bus driver," seized opportunities to head the growing Union. His supposed statement of "all things to all people" speaks to political power, not a "fear of god."

And so it goes, to the quagmire we have today. Slaves wanting to be more, looking for answers from the prison bus driver.

Is this de ja vue all over again ? Because STOP already.

Ya no mas.

I don't often post on RfM anymore, but when I do, I love me a good ol' historical Jesus thread!

A good book at this website called Ceasar's Messiah, the Roman Conspiracy to Invent Christ.

http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/

That book has been debunked. See yesterday's thread by Susie Q on the Romans inventing Jesus to control people

For some reason, (which I have been unable to understand), people who are religious believers,(which through out history seems to be the norm), seem to have a need to humanize their dead deities and act as if they are real, alive and guiding and helping them in their daily life. Must be something about human nature as it's so much a part of every society known to mankind.

So, technically, it doesn't matter if the religious deity was a real person who lived on the earth. That's beside the point. There is a tradition that faith in a savior, God/s is a natural part of the human experience.

Powerful leaders have shown a propensity to use religion as a way to control their followers in every way possible. They build edifices, write music, have dances,feasts, rituals, costuming, etc. all of which is highly organized and must follow certain rules in order to be acceptable to the deity/savior, etc.
It was always unacceptable to reject any of the religious norms and people have been persecuted and killed, rejected, etc. for non compliance for eons.

I'm very grateful I live in a place on this earth and in a day and time that I am not compelled to adhere to the traditional norms of any religious requirements. I can, in good conscientiousness reject all of it and be fine.

Does it matter if Jesus was a real person or not? No. Of course, not.

Per Bona:

Jesus was a real person but Jesus Christ wasn't.

Per Nate:

Were are the documents talking about this mythical Jesus person? As far as I know, (could be very little), there are none. Jesus Christ on the other hand has loads of support.

It matters if you care about history. Obviously some of you dont, but I do. Furthermore, Jesus does not have to be a god to matter. His movement, filtered through Paul, profoundly affected Western civilization. That makes it important.Another point is that among scholars there is little debate on whether Jesus was real.You are debating an issue that people educated in the field see as obvious and settled. There was a real Jesus who was mythologized and he was important because of his affect on history. But go ahead and debate it, but it is a silly conspiracy theory on the extreme fringes of historical research. It has about as much credence as aliens building the pyramids.

You can always tell when the other side runs out of arguments when they start ridiculing opposing views and appealing to authority ;-)

It is no more an appeal to authority than to say all or most scientists believe in evolution. The appeal to authority argument is hypocritical unless you apply it to ALL authorities and I doubt you do.Disregarding the consensus of scholars is extremely anti intellectual and mythicism is ridiculous in the eyes of virtually all scholars.Those are facts. Of course scholars could be wrong but the odds are very much against it.

Double post



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2016 08:35AM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is no more an appeal to authority than to say all or most scientists believe in evolution.

Which, of course, I never said. But to elaborate: there is plenty of evidence for evolution. For an historical Jesus, not so much.


> The appeal to authority argument is hypocritical unless you apply it to ALL authorities and I doubt you do.

An appeal to authority is justified when that authority is rooted in evidence. That is hardly the case for an historical Jesus.


> Disregarding the consensus of scholars is extremely anti intellectual

Only if the consensus is rooted in evidence.


> mythicism is ridiculous in the eyes of virtually all scholars.

But since most of these scholars, by their own admission, have little factual evidence to back them up, this is nothing but a fallacious appeal to authority.

Wait, did we just witness a case of circular reasoning?


> Those are facts.

If you employ a very loose definition of the term fact,


> Of course scholars could be wrong but the odds are very much against it.

I began my OP with biblical scholars' own observation that they have very little factual evidence. That is the scholarly consensus and I don't think they are wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2016 08:41AM by rt.

I am not going to summarize the arguments for a historical Jesus as it is a big subject and would require a very long essay. Besides many arguments have been covered here in other threads. I would suggest you read Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey. Did Jesus Exist? is easy reading and covers the subject well

Like I said in the OP, almost all books on the subject start with such a summary, so you're excused. Where we disagree is the conclusion we draw from them. For you, it is enough to conclude that Jesus was a real person, for me it isn't.

What do we know about the man, really? Not much.

Toss out his genealogies, both of them that don't agree on any particular except Adam and Eve, who never existed.

Toss out virgin birth, it never happened. The whole Bethlehem scene was concocted apparently to fulfill prophecy; otherwise the evangelist puts him right back in Nazareth and the others don't say anything.

Nix the journey to Egypt, again it was only to fulfill prophecy. King Herod the Great never butchered a whole city of children.

The rest of his childhood to thirty years-old is silent except for a few unfalsifiable miracle stories – nothing that tells us anything about his character.

Then enter him into his ministry at thirty years old and the three years that followed until he was killed –– this short time period represents anything of substance that can be known about the man. If we assume that the miracle stories didn't happen exactly is advertised (which is a safe bet because none of them agree with each other, and the parts that do are often because Mathew and Luke both lifted material from Mark verbatim), we have his teachings and parables. There are discrepancies in these too, but the gist of most of his teaching seems to be "the kingdom of God is coming" and "I am the son of God," the former claim being no different from what every other messianic pretender came saying meaning that Rome would be gone and Israel an independent theocracy worshipping God like it was supposed to be and the latter claim being something that the earliest gospels only shyly hint at (i.e. he said it only to his disciples but they understood him not at the time or he said it to a person here and a person there but commanded them to say nothing about it to anyone else but they did anyway, or so the evangelists claim) which leads me to believe that content was being created retrospectively.

Most of his teachings that actually fall within the category of "morality" were plagerisms from other great Jewish rabbis at the time. And the rest is trash designed out of whole cloth to make the Jews look like the nosy penny-pinching self-interested fiends we know from stereotypical fame. The New Testament single-handedly crafted anti-semitism.

Objectively, all we are left with is a Jewish revolutionary killed by Pontius Pilate. There's perhaps one reference to Jesus the brother of James who was killed by Pilate in Josephus' Antiquity of the Jews. Besides that, there is NOTHING on Jesus of Nazareth besides the four gospels of which I am aware.

So, really, what does it mean to say Jesus existed? It doesn't mean shit. It's like debating whether Pontius Pilate had salt or sugar on his pancakes that morning. We could delve deeply into what condiments the Romans used. We could make inferences about Pilate's daily routine by comparing him to others. We could populate the room in a dramatic recreation that probably isn't too inaccurate. But at the end of the day it was a nonevent in history. Not that Christianity was a nonevent in history, but Christianity is a religion that does not require its foundational story to be true, only that its adherents believe it to be true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2016 06:35PM by Cold-Dodger.

We know he came from Nazareth, became a rabbi, preached that the apocalypse was near, preached the need to love God and each other,gained a following and started a movement ,and was crucified. We know his followers believed he rose from the dead and we know some of his teachings.That is as much or more than we know of others from that time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2016 08:01PM by bona dea.

You do not have to be a prophet or the Son of God to have had an impact on history and be worth studying. This was meant for ex LDS dude



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2016 08:05PM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We know he came from Nazareth, became a rabbi,
> preached that the apocalypse was near, preached
> the need to love God and each other,gained a
> following and started a movement ,and was
> crucified. We know his followers believed he rose
> from the dead and we know some of his
> teachings.That is as much or more than we know of
> others from that time.

And we "know" all this from sources who never actually met Jesus, who contradict each other on virtually every factual statement they make, and in the total absence of a single shred of supporting evidence.

I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, just that there is no reliable evidence that he did. Some people prefer to ignore that and start from the assumption that he did exist. But it is nothing more than that, an assumption.

There are independent sources who agree on those things.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are independent sources who agree on those
> things.

Please share them!

The gospel writers wrote independently, from different areas and at different times as did other NT writers. Some of the details such as the crucifixion are mentioned by Roman writers. Read Bart Ehrman



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2016 08:59AM by bona dea.

Couldn't care less whether he did or didn't exist. If he did he wasn't the son of a non-existant god.

Joe Smith existed too, but he wasn't a prophet.

Almost all CHRISTIAN biblical scholars believe Jesus was a real person. Of course, they would.

But a lot of others agree that the Jesus we know today is an composition of many nutcases and con men who went around Israel in those days claiming to be the Messiah. The common punishment for that was crucifixion, and for a few decades at the height of the fad, there were several on most weeks. Which is why 'our' Jesus was crucified together with two others: the gospel calls them criminals, but more likely, they were rival Messiahs!

Actually they dont believe Jesus was a composite figure.

This is a circular firing squad. Whether Jesus (title, not a name) existed is irrelevant. The god cannot exist as explained by Jewish mythology. A perfect god cannot be vengeful and simultaneously benevelant. So he lived? So he didn't? So what?

Sigh. So he is only relevant is he were a god? I guess that pretty much makes everyone in history irrelevant.

I know that there are those that are going to radically disagree with me, however I cite to you the writings of Nicolas Nonovitch "The Unknown Life of Christ" and Nicholas Roerich who in 1925 did extensive research on the 12-30 year life of Christ. There are those who discredit the research and writing of these scholars but they are worthy of studying. I expect to get blasted on this but I still take the stand that the story has credence.

Thank you for this thread, rt. I know there are many here that see it as a pointless argument, but, I always enjoy reading the historical Jesus threads. I tend to learn more each time.

why don't you give us a list of the names of the "biblical scholars" who believe this.

I have done so many times and you know it. I made a list-again- and it wouldnt post. Apparently I used a forbidden word. Really? The names of historians are on the list? I havent got time to figure it out so you can look it up. They have all been listed



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2016 11:11PM by bona dea.

the dog ate your homework again.

Arguing is such a waste of time ------ except for RFMrs that love to argue with little actual 'proof' or something to show for it other than 'opinion and belief'.

Just so you all know ----- A preacher did live, and of course his 'soul' is available in the 'spirit world', that claims he was the 'person/not God' the Jesus-myth was based on.

He claims he was 'enlightened' by remembering a lot about the 'spirit world and God' and could do some minor healings. However, never resurrected but reincarnated. And that is what he taught.

He is not happy what is recorded about him or his 'teachings' in the Bible.

Don't let my post interrupt the 'arguing over nothing' that is going on ------ I sort of enjoy the back and forth with just a comment or questions!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2016 12:35AM by spiritist.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arguing is such a waste of time ------ except for
> RFMrs that love to argue with little actual
> 'proof' or something to show for it other than
> 'opinion and belief'.
>
> Just so you all know ----- A preacher did live,
> and of course his 'soul' is available in the
> 'spirit world', that claims he was the 'person/not
> God' the Jesus-myth was based on.

That's rather amusing. You castigate people for arguing without proof and nothing other than opinion and belief, and then you state something as a fact with no proof, only an opinion and a belief.

There's a word for that kind of self-contradiction...it starts with an "h" end ends with "crite."

a) I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, provide a survey or study showing that, in fact, "almost all biblical scholars believe Jesus was a real person." Evidence for that claim is anecdotal, not established. But of course, it's repeated as an article of faith, as if it were a "fact" not to be challenged. It may well be a true statement -- but there's no reason to accept it as true until it's shown true by evidence.

b)Notice that the statement says they "believe" Jesus was a real person. To which I say, "so what?" It's quite likely that almost all biblical scholars believe in "god." Their beliefs do not establish facts.

c)The statement carries no more weight because the beliefs involved come from "biblical scholars" -- it's still "beliefs." Beliefs don't magically become knowledge or facts because the people who hold them are "smart" or educated in a particular field. That's an appeal to authority fallacy.

d)The statement carries no more weight because the beliefs involved come from a "majority" -- it's still "beliefs." Beliefs don't magically become knowledge or facts because a majority of people (even those of a certain group) hold them. That's an appeal to popularity fallacy.

e)The statement is, frankly, an admission of lack of evidence; if this supposed majority had evidence that "Jesus was a real person," they would say so, and label the existence of a real Jesus an established fact. They don't. They admit it's "beliefs" -- because no such evidence is at hand.

There have been plausible hypotheses put forth by "biblical scholars" about how an actual Jesus could have existed. There have also been plausible hypotheses put forth by both "biblical scholars" and others about how the entire Jesus story could be myth, with no "real person" needed behind it. None of these hypotheses has verifying evidence. The fact is, nobody knows if there was an actual Jesus or not. "Belief" one way or the other is irrelevant to facts.