Historical Jesus

[iolo]

Well, neither am I, obviously. The question of what the 'religious' presentation meant in real terms, terms that make sense to us.

That's the point. It seems more likely that there were multiple streams of thought that were later "harmonized".

The Jesus character could've been a single man, or a composite of Jewish holy men or Cynic sages.

Far too late for this sort of thing.

- - - Updated - - -

If they weren't real people, who were they and who made them up, why? A revolutionary movement is seldom invented by anyone with any power, as you know, and we know what the imperial bosses thought of this one. They didn't want the mighty put down from their seats, see.

I thought I mentioned why I thought they were made up.
I say they were made up to challenge the status quo
And by that I mean the first mention of Jesus which the later authors built upon

Who made them up, and why? They challenged the status quo anyway.

 

[Horatio Parker]

That's the point. It seems more likely that there were multiple streams of thought that were later "harmonized".

The Jesus character could've been a single man, or a composite of Jewish holy men or Cynic sages.

Far too late for this sort of thing.

What are you talking about? What's too late?

 

[iolo]

Far too late for this sort of thing.

What are you talking about? What's too late?

If you are talking about prehistoric societies you can hypothesis made-up, composite people. The First Century Roman Empire is too late for that stuff.

 

[Horatio Parker]

What are you talking about? What's too late?

If you are talking about prehistoric societies you can hypothesis made-up, composite people. The First Century Roman Empire is too late for that stuff.

And you know this how?

The point is this: there may indeed be history behind Jesus, but it's very unlikely that it's the history of the Gospels.

Let's say there was a HJ. How much of the Gospels would be accurate? 5-10%? And what would that consist of? Father was a carpenter, born in Galilee, executed by the Romans?

 

[none]

That's the point. It seems more likely that there were multiple streams of thought that were later "harmonized".

The Jesus character could've been a single man, or a composite of Jewish holy men or Cynic sages.

Far too late for this sort of thing.

- - - Updated - - -

If they weren't real people, who were they and who made them up, why? A revolutionary movement is seldom invented by anyone with any power, as you know, and we know what the imperial bosses thought of this one. They didn't want the mighty put down from their seats, see.

I thought I mentioned why I thought they were made up.
I say they were made up to challenge the status quo
And by that I mean the first mention of Jesus which the later authors built upon

Who made them up, and why? They challenged the status quo anyway.

Not sure you understand what I wrote.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What are you talking about? What's too late?

If you are talking about prehistoric societies you can hypothesis made-up, composite people. The First Century Roman Empire is too late for that stuff.

Why? If, five hundred or a thousand years from now, the original works referencing them are not available for confirmation but you have people talking about a salesman named Willy Loman or a Civil War era woman named Scarlett O'Hara or an actor named William Shatner, what is the basis you'd use to determine if they're real people or fictional people?

 

[couch_sloth]

What are you talking about? What's too late?

If you are talking about prehistoric societies you can hypothesis made-up, composite people. The First Century Roman Empire is too late for that stuff.

That's most likely true for important officials, e.g. Roman generals and governors... But not for a supposed miracle-working preacher in the backwoods of the empire; whose life story wasn't written down until decades after he lived.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What are you talking about? What's too late?

If you are talking about prehistoric societies you can hypothesis made-up, composite people. The First Century Roman Empire is too late for that stuff.

That sounds like a lady from a group I used to frequent who insisted the Turin Cloth must certainly be real or it could never have become the object of veneration it is today.

 

[iolo]

American conspiracy theory is rather weird to most people, I'm afraid. There is all the difference in the world between myth and history, and obviously nobody back then - in a very hostile environment - even thought to deny the existence of real people, though they might well make up lies about elements in their lives.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

American conspiracy theory is rather weird to most people, I'm afraid. There is all the difference in the world between myth and history, and obviously nobody back then - in a very hostile environment - even thought to deny the existence of real people, though they might well make up lies about elements in their lives.

Nobody back then thought to deny the existence of Hercules either and opine that sacrificing a white bull to him at the gates of Rome before marching into battle was really just a waste of a perfectly good bull. The notion that some dude was wandering around healing the sick because he had that power as the child of a god wasn't a terribly out there notion.

 

[iolo]

American conspiracy theory is rather weird to most people, I'm afraid. There is all the difference in the world between myth and history, and obviously nobody back then - in a very hostile environment - even thought to deny the existence of real people, though they might well make up lies about elements in their lives.

Nobody back then thought to deny the existence of Hercules either and opine that sacrificing a white bull to him at the gates of Rome before marching into battle was really just a waste of a perfectly good bull. The notion that some dude was wandering around healing the sick because he had that power as the child of a god wasn't a terribly out there notion.

Yes they did. We are talking about the First Century, and if they discussed the matter at all, many called him a demon. Educated people hadn't believed seriously in that nonsense for years, though they were very superstitious about rituals. Lots of people now can do faith healing - it is quite common. All this has nothing whatever to do with theism or otherwise - like so much American 'unbelief' it is just the mirror-image of the stuff it denies, superstitious and unhistorical.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Nobody back then thought to deny the existence of Hercules either and opine that sacrificing a white bull to him at the gates of Rome before marching into battle was really just a waste of a perfectly good bull. The notion that some dude was wandering around healing the sick because he had that power as the child of a god wasn't a terribly out there notion.

Yes they did. We are talking about the First Century, and if they discussed the matter at all, many called him a demon. Educated people hadn't believed seriously in that nonsense for years, though they were very superstitious about rituals. Lots of people now can do faith healing - it is quite common. All this has nothing whatever to do with theism or otherwise - like so much American 'unbelief' it is just the mirror-image of the stuff it denies, superstitious and unhistorical.

Not altogether true. Many believe Christianity is much improved by removing Jesus as God-man from the mix.

Also, demons in the ancient world weren't necessarily bad. And demons were real. Plato certainly didn't think of the gods as literal, but that's not the same as not existing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes they did. We are talking about the First Century, and if they discussed the matter at all, many called him a demon. Educated people hadn't believed seriously in that nonsense for years, though they were very superstitious about rituals. Lots of people now can do faith healing - it is quite common. All this has nothing whatever to do with theism or otherwise - like so much American 'unbelief' it is just the mirror-image of the stuff it denies, superstitious and unhistorical.

Wait ... did you just say that there are lots of people now who can do faith healing? You do realize that the number of people who can actually do that is zero, correct?

 

[Atheos]

Nobody back then thought to deny the existence of Hercules either and opine that sacrificing a white bull to him at the gates of Rome before marching into battle was really just a waste of a perfectly good bull. The notion that some dude was wandering around healing the sick because he had that power as the child of a god wasn't a terribly out there notion.

Yes they did. We are talking about the First Century, and if they discussed the matter at all, many called him a demon. Educated people hadn't believed seriously in that nonsense for years, though they were very superstitious about rituals. Lots of people now can do faith healing - it is quite common. All this has nothing whatever to do with theism or otherwise - like so much American 'unbelief' it is just the mirror-image of the stuff it denies, superstitious and unhistorical.

I can't help wondering where you come up with statements like this. I've been a lay student of ancient history for most of my life, specifically the time period in question. My impression of people from that era is that they were quite superstitious and the vast majority of people at least professed belief in one god or another. Certainly there were pockets of rational thought where small groups of people had determined these things to be "nonsense" as you suggest, but they were by far the exception and not the rule. And they were often referred to as atheists.

While I agree that faith healers are (and always have been) a dime a dozen, there is little left of the Jesus myth when one removes the faith-healing aspect. And there is no evidence that any of the rest of it actually happened other than these religious myths.

 

[James Brown]

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire, by Richard Carrier

Examines the wide-spread superstition in that time period, some even spelled out in the New Testament itself.

 

[Atheos]

Yes they did. We are talking about the First Century, and if they discussed the matter at all, many called him a demon. Educated people hadn't believed seriously in that nonsense for years, though they were very superstitious about rituals. Lots of people now can do faith healing - it is quite common. All this has nothing whatever to do with theism or otherwise - like so much American 'unbelief' it is just the mirror-image of the stuff it denies, superstitious and unhistorical.

Wait ... did you just say that there are lots of people now who can do faith healing? You do realize that the number of people who can actually do that is zero, correct?

Well, it depends on how you define "faith healing." If you define it as the ability to con people into believing they were healed by some supernatural force the number is quite significant. If you define it in terms of the number of people who can restore amputated limbs through said supernatural force the number is, as you state, zero.

The potential for "faith" to heal is exactly the same as the potential of the body to heal itself without faith. If this were expressed as an algebraic equation your schoolmarm would rap your knuckles if you didn't cancel "faith" from each side of the equation.

 

[iolo]

Yes they did. We are talking about the First Century, and if they discussed the matter at all, many called him a demon. Educated people hadn't believed seriously in that nonsense for years, though they were very superstitious about rituals. Lots of people now can do faith healing - it is quite common. All this has nothing whatever to do with theism or otherwise - like so much American 'unbelief' it is just the mirror-image of the stuff it denies, superstitious and unhistorical.

Wait ... did you just say that there are lots of people now who can do faith healing? You do realize that the number of people who can actually do that is zero, correct?

Thousands of people can heal warts, for instance - I can myself. How does that work then, if not by faith??

 

[iolo]

Wait ... did you just say that there are lots of people now who can do faith healing? You do realize that the number of people who can actually do that is zero, correct?

Well, it depends on how you define "faith healing." If you define it as the ability to con people into believing they were healed by some supernatural force the number is quite significant. If you define it in terms of the number of people who can restore amputated limbs through said supernatural force the number is, as you state, zero.

The potential for "faith" to heal is exactly the same as the potential of the body to heal itself without faith. If this were expressed as an algebraic equation your schoolmarm would rap your knuckles if you didn't cancel "faith" from each side of the equation.

Who ever claimed to restore amputated limbs - don't be silly! Who is talking about 'supernatural force?' Surely even you have heard of the placebo effect? You lot live in a very weird world!

 

[iolo]

Yes they did. We are talking about the First Century, and if they discussed the matter at all, many called him a demon. Educated people hadn't believed seriously in that nonsense for years, though they were very superstitious about rituals. Lots of people now can do faith healing - it is quite common. All this has nothing whatever to do with theism or otherwise - like so much American 'unbelief' it is just the mirror-image of the stuff it denies, superstitious and unhistorical.

I can't help wondering where you come up with statements like this. I've been a lay student of ancient history for most of my life, specifically the time period in question. My impression of people from that era is that they were quite superstitious and the vast majority of people at least professed belief in one god or another. Certainly there were pockets of rational thought where small groups of people had determined these things to be "nonsense" as you suggest, but they were by far the exception and not the rule. And they were often referred to as atheists.

While I agree that faith healers are (and always have been) a dime a dozen, there is little left of the Jesus myth when one removes the faith-healing aspect. And there is no evidence that any of the rest of it actually happened other than these religious myths.

Yes - they were superstitious. Lots of people, who don't believe in any 'gods', desperately dodge doing things on Friday 13th and avoiding going under ladders. Where in Latin Literature (other than in those that simply do the Stalin-prize stuff to Augustus or whatever - do you find anyone who shows signs of really serious belief in the Roman gods? And the points about Jesus of Nazareth are universalism and primitive socialism. Always translate into Godless if you want to use the past. Back then they all thought (or at least talked) in Goddish, but they weren't idiots.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wut? So, you're saying that Jesus was a real guy but was a shyster using the placebo effect to pretend to heal people? Or are you saying that you can heal warts by prayer (in a non-placebo way) and therefore Jesus, being the son of God, could do more advanced medical procedures by prayer? Or are you saying something completely different?

I'm really not sure what your argument is, so I don't know how to respond.