Historical Jesus

[DrZoidberg]

Even if Jesus was a real person, the chances of him being anything like the Jesus in the Bible is near zero. The only Jesus we know anything about is the Jesus in the Bible, and he is fictional.

He was obviously a real person, and his words are convincingly recorded, because they are nothing like the expected 'religious' guff. End of story.

Is this sarcasm, or are you channelling the spirit of Lumpy?

I didn't say he wasn't a real person. I'm just saying that the Jesus character in the Bible is fictional. There's a difference.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Even if Jesus was a real person, the chances of him being anything like the Jesus in the Bible is near zero. The only Jesus we know anything about is the Jesus in the Bible, and he is fictional.

He was obviously a real person, and his words are convincingly recorded, because they are nothing like the expected 'religious' guff. End of story.

I used to belong to the Center for Inquiry. At one meeting a lady insisted that the only reason for the popularity of the Turin Shroud had to be that it was a burial garment for the Jesus person. "How else," she protested, can one account for its popularity.

Belief in the irrational is hugely popular.

 

[DrZoidberg]

He was obviously a real person, and his words are convincingly recorded, because they are nothing like the expected 'religious' guff. End of story.

I used to belong to the Center for Inquiry. At one meeting a lady insisted that the only reason for the popularity of the Turin Shroud had to be that it was a burial garment for the Jesus person. "How else," she protested, can one account for its popularity.

Belief in the irrational is hugely popular.

With that logic we shout eat poop, because if a hundred billion billion flies do it, it has to be healthy

 

[bilby]

Even if Jesus was a real person, the chances of him being anything like the Jesus in the Bible is near zero. The only Jesus we know anything about is the Jesus in the Bible, and he is fictional.

He was obviously a real person, and his words are convincingly recorded, because they are nothing like the expected 'religious' guff. End of story.

It's possible that there was a real person or persons upon whom the character known as Jesus is based; But obvious it most assuredly is not. The very fact that it is so widely and frequently debated makes it clear that it's far from obvious.

I know that some Christians like to claim that people deny Jesus's historicity to discredit their beliefs, but that's not particularly plausible - Mohamed was obviously a real person, and his historicity is not denied by anti-Muslims, so why should we imagine that Jesus's historicity would be denied for anti-Christian reasons? It makes no sense - It's not a problem for those opposed to Islam to say "Mohamed was a real person, but wasn't a prophet".

It's equally no problem for me to accept the possibility that Jesus was a real person, but wasn't the son of god. But to go from 'possibility' to 'obvious fact' requires evidence. A lot more evidence than 'The quotes attributed to him are really wise'. Yoda said lots of things that many people consider wise. is it obvious that Yoda is a real person?

Some smart people wrote down some clever things, and attributed them to a speaker from between 70 and 400 years before they wrote them down. No matter what those clever things were, nor how impressive, there is nothing to tell us for sure whether they were correctly attributed; or whether they were in fact all said by different people; or whether they were invented by the writer(s), using a long-dead persona perhaps to protect himself/themselves against accusations of heresy, or perhaps because he was afraid of being ridiculed, or because he felt that he wasn't of sufficient stature to be taken seriously, so he put his words in the mouth of a more compelling pseudonymous individual (from far enough away in both space and time to make it hard for his audience to detect his deceit).

There are myriad possible ways in which those words might have originated, and no reason whatsoever to accept that any one of these ways is more plausible than the others. Certainly none is obviously the right answer to the question 'from where did these words originate?'. And indeed, the question is unimportant (unless you believe in the divinity of Jesus).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There's lots of stuff with Shakespeare's name on it that doesn't belong to the bard. There's an entire apocrypha. People did this stuff so they'd be read.

And if Jesus is historical so is Pegasus and Rhett Butler, two more fictional beings based on an author's experiences.

 

[Atheos]

Who exactly made up this figure, and what exactly did they get out of it? To deny history is a mug's game unless you have very good reason, and as far as I can see you have none whatever, except the desperate urge to do re-enactment of mid-Nineteenth-Century arguments with long-dead theologians.

There is the problem. Who exactly is this Jesus and what exactly did he actually do? To accept physics-denying activities is a fool's errand unless there is solid physical evidence, and as far as I can see there is none whatsoever, except the desperate urge of people like Lumpenproletariat to argue that the guy wouldn't be known today if it weren't for the miracles he did, therefore he must have done those very miracles. Circular reasoning with a garnish of appeal to popularity.

Meanwhile you come in with your minimalist approach and argue that this person must have been an actual historical figure because skeptics cannot produce evidence to substantiate exactly what those who made all this bullshit up were gaining from said making-up of bullshit.

The point is that nobody has to know exactly what the gain was in order to know that (1) people make up bullshit all the time; and (2) sometimes people do things for absolutely unfathomable reasons. For evidence of (1) just go to snopes.com. If you're too lazy to do that I'll appeal to a couple of in-thread examples: What the fuck do the hooligans who ride dirt bikes on public roads in California gain by terrorizing innocent drivers attempting to get home at the end of a hard day's work? Yet gangs do these very things. Why do people spend hordes of time writing computer viruses, knowing that they need to remain anonymous? I don't understand this mentality either. Yet I know that people do both of these things and many others that I have no idea why. I don't have to know why everyone does things I consider stupid to know that people do things I personally consider stupid.

For good measure I'll toss in the Barny and Betty Hill alien abduction stories. Why the hell did they go to all that effort to make up such a story that any sensible person knows was a lie. Yet they did and they got others to corroborate. Multiply that 1000 times over for the crowd of "me-toos" that proliferated in the '60s and you've got a perfect parallel to the Jesus myth of the 1st century C.E.

I know for a fact that almost every 15 minutes someone somewhere invents some new religious cult and people start following it. I know that fully 99% of these cults die out within a single generation. I have no idea why people do it, but it happens. I know that sometimes, once in a great while, one of these new cults makes it far enough into the big time to merit national attention. Applewhite, Knight, Koresh, Moon, Hubbard, etc. And sometimes (even more rarely) these cults go far beyond single generation cults and end up with major spreads. Joseph Smith, Mohammad, etc.

It is far more reasonable to assume that a charismatic cult leader named Paul began channeling a "Jesus" character who later was turned into a living flesh-and-blood person who had lived in recent history (a scenario that fits all available evidence) than to assume that Paul was talking about someone who had defied the laws of physics and medicinal technology, and had resurrected from actual death and levitated off into the sky never to be seen again.

This is what we in the "business" call "Being real."

For those who want to believe in Santa Claus of course, anything goes. Maaaaaaagic, magic, magic, magic, magic.

 

[angelo]

Some say that Paul's epistles were the very first writings about the Jesus character, even before Mark's gospel which many assume was the first gospel.

Paul was said to persecute the first group of "Christians, " who until his experience on the road to Damascus, which if true was a schizophrenic episode in which he saw delusional visions of this myth that may have started from a close knit group of people who were awaiting a messiah as was foretold in the book of Daniel.
The Jesus myth has no basis in reality, and was just spawned from a hearsay, just as the tales of Hercules, Samson, and perhaps even Moses were just fables with no basis in reality.

 

[iolo]

Some say that Paul's epistles were the very first writings about the Jesus character, even before Mark's gospel which many assume was the first gospel.

Paul was said to persecute the first group of "Christians, " who until his experience on the road to Damascus, which if true was a schizophrenic episode in which he saw delusional visions of this myth that may have started from a close knit group of people who were awaiting a messiah as was foretold in the book of Daniel.
The Jesus myth has no basis in reality, and was just spawned from a hearsay, just as the tales of Hercules, Samson, and perhaps even Moses were just fables with no basis in reality.

Far be it from me to disturb your simple faith. Most people, however, look at the evidence.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Some say that Paul's epistles were the very first writings about the Jesus character, even before Mark's gospel which many assume was the first gospel.

Paul was said to persecute the first group of "Christians, " who until his experience on the road to Damascus, which if true was a schizophrenic episode in which he saw delusional visions of this myth that may have started from a close knit group of people who were awaiting a messiah as was foretold in the book of Daniel.
The Jesus myth has no basis in reality, and was just spawned from a hearsay, just as the tales of Hercules, Samson, and perhaps even Moses were just fables with no basis in reality.

Schizophrenia is modern science and medicine. These psychotic events were once interpreted as religious experiences and used to bolster the case for gods and all sorts of impossible interventions.

We know now that they result from a brain condition, no gods needed. But many people still interpret them as evidence for magic spacemen that do impossible things and are interested in our sex organs and all manner of things.

And if I were psychotic I would interpret them the same way, as they would be evidence to me that my delusions were about real things.

If you've ever dealt with a psychotic individual you understand and appreciate the connection between psychosis and religious belief.

 

[Juma]

Some say that Paul's epistles were the very first writings about the Jesus character, even before Mark's gospel which many assume was the first gospel.

Paul was said to persecute the first group of "Christians, " who until his experience on the road to Damascus, which if true was a schizophrenic episode in which he saw delusional visions of this myth that may have started from a close knit group of people who were awaiting a messiah as was foretold in the book of Daniel.
The Jesus myth has no basis in reality, and was just spawned from a hearsay, just as the tales of Hercules, Samson, and perhaps even Moses were just fables with no basis in reality.

Far be it from me to disturb your simple faith. Most people, however, look at the evidence.

so provide some...

 

[Atheos]

Far be it from me to disturb your simple faith. Most people, however, look at the evidence.

so provide some...

The evidence lies squarely in favor of the proposition that most of the biographical information about this character developed over several decades, not that it existed intact from the get-go. Like stories of Paul Bunyan there was just one at first but over several decades many more developed.

There is abundant evidence that people were making up lots of stories about this character that were later discarded.

The earliest written mentionings of this character were by Paul circa 55 C.E. These writings only speak of a heavenly voice talking to Paul which he relays to others. He does not refer to Jesus as someone who had lived in recent history and doesn't refer to him being in any particular places. Paul never mentions Mary or Joseph, Bethlehem, the infancy menace, the confounding of the temple leaders, etc. Paul never mentions the baptism by John the Baptist, the temptation scenes, nor does he ever mention a single miracle Jesus performed.

Even when addressing subject matter that Jesus supposedly talked about Paul never refers to anything Jesus said about the subject but instead speaks with authority of his own.

This is following the evidence where it leads, not starting with one's desired conclusion and attempting to force-fit the evidence into that desired result.

Having said that I will reiterate: I'm just fine with the idea that there is an historical nugget ("Jesus") that formed the early inspiration for the Jesus myth that developed later. What I am certain of (based on the evidence) is that if this historical Jesus existed he bore little resemblance to the one described in the canonical gospels. If there is any irony at all to this debate it's that Iolo and I aren't really that far apart from what I can tell. I do have great skepticism that the "things Jesus said" were preserved inviolate even if he was an historical figure. Lots of sayings have been attributed to Ben Franklin that he did not say, among which are "A penny saved is a penny earned." With Ben Franklin we have the "luxury" of considerably greater historical evidence with which to vet what things he said against those he did not. No such evidence is available for this Jesus character, so it is irresponsible at best to claim with certainty that those things were preserved intact. The only thing we can say is we have no way to know if Jesus said these things or not.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Even when addressing subject matter that Jesus supposedly talked about Paul never refers to anything Jesus said about the subject but instead speaks with authority of his own.

This does seem to be the key factor. It would be like a Republican talking about Reagan without ever mentioning anything that Reagan said or did or a Muslim talking about Mohammed without bringing up anything that's in the Koran. If you're going to use somebody as an authority for a position, general practice is to use a quote or example about why he's an authority. Then the story moves on from it being simply a disembodied voice to the disembodied voice of a guy who died and then details of that somebody's life are added in as time goes on by retconning them into the story.

 

[James Brown]

Even when addressing subject matter that Jesus supposedly talked about Paul never refers to anything Jesus said about the subject but instead speaks with authority of his own.

Like Tom, this was a big kicker for me during my deconversion. Not only does Paul not recount anything Jesus said, Paul doesn't recount Jesus when doing so would strengthen his argument. When, for example, discussing how Christians should not fear death, wouldn't that have been a perfect time to mention that Jesus restored Lazarus from the grave?

This is particularly the case when Paul is not just preaching but arguing with other Christians. How many times does a Christian today begin a rebuttal with the words, "But Jesus said..." Yet Paul never once does the same. When arguing (by proxy) with Peter and other Christians about Christian doctrine, Paul's method is to assert his own authority. Presumably his antagonist is asserting his own authority in return, and it's up to the readers to decide to whose authority they should submit. Given this "am not, are too" style of argument, one would expect Paul to use the Son of God's authority to back him up, just like every Christian does today.

He never does.

What really helped seal the deal was prompted by a question asked me by an atheist on another board. How come, in the epistles of Paul, he never refers to the Second Coming of Christ? He talks plenty about Jesus "coming" or that he "will come", but he never says, "returning" or "coming again." It's almost as if Paul is looking forward to Jesus walking the earth the first time. It's only in the epistles written after the gospels were written that we see references to a previous visit.

 

[blastula]

Don't say never because there a few places Paul does mention Jesus's teachings - on divorce, on paying preachers, on the Eucharist. Curiously, those are all in 1 Cor.

 

[iolo]

Far be it from me to disturb your simple faith. Most people, however, look at the evidence.

so provide some...

Not being paranoid, I tend to accept accepted history unless someone gives me very good evidence indeed to deny it. Basically, as a normally sane person, I just keep asking who on earth, in the world of that time, stood to gain by making up a pretend revolutionary hero. Not being brought up an American Bible-basher, I tend to go by common sense rather than Wikipedia Book 1200052, Verse 6.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I just keep asking who on earth, in the world of that time, stood to gain by making up a pretend revolutionary hero.

So, argument from incredulity.
You can't imagine anyone having a reason to make up a story, thus it must not be made up.

 

[funinspace]

I just keep asking who on earth, in the world of that time, stood to gain by making up a pretend revolutionary hero.

So, argument from incredulity.
You can't imagine anyone having a reason to make up a story, thus it must not be made up.

Agreed. A really good modern example is why in the world would Joseph Smith, and later Brigham Young build up this new LDS faith system. It got JS and oneof his groupies even killed, but still the group endured and even moved twice dealing with being ostracized and scorned.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, argument from incredulity.
You can't imagine anyone having a reason to make up a story, thus it must not be made up.

Agreed. A really good modern example is why in the world would Joseph Smith, and later Brigham Young build up this new LDS faith system. It got JS and oneof his groupies even killed, but still the group endured and even moved twice dealing with being ostracized and scorned.

Oh, I wouldn't even go in for the 'long con' with hopes of one day being profitable.

just look at all the fanfic sites where people just make shit up because it's the sort of thing they want to hear. fanfiction.net, Adultfanfiction.net, Breitbart. trekslashfic.org

 

[Horatio Parker]

Iolo's idea of gain seems to be predicated on the assumption that the anonymous author of gMark intended to deceive.

 

[funinspace]

Agreed. A really good modern example is why in the world would Joseph Smith, and later Brigham Young build up this new LDS faith system. It got JS and oneof his groupies even killed, but still the group endured and even moved twice dealing with being ostracized and scorned.

Oh, I wouldn't even go in for the 'long con' with hopes of one day being profitable.

just look at all the fanfic sites where people just make shit up because it's the sort of thing they want to hear. fanfiction.net, Adultfanfiction.net, Breitbart. trekslashfic.org

I wasn't trying to suggest a long motivation plan for profit. For those that think "they just couldn't make the shit up cuz what was to be gained", I simply ask what was Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's motivations? Was it Power? Fame? History? Did the dirty dozen of signers of JS proclamation of translating golden tablets drink the Koolaid? Were they pressured? Deluded?

Personally, I don't have solid working hypothesis of why JS did the crazy stuff he did, nor why anyone would follow such a nut. But at the same time I recognize that charismatic people can draw people into emergent cult systems and get them to believe really stupid and crazy stuff. History is replete with such nonsense...