Did Jesus exist? (Poll)

[Copernicus]

I voted the "likely not exist" option, but that is not necessarily to deny that there might have been one or more actual people whose existence contributed to the legend. Maybe Paul really did meet James, the brother of a man who was executed by the Roman or Jewish authorities for some offense. Or maybe it was a woman whose gender got modified by sexist male chauvinists. Jesus stories were rife in the 1st and 2nd centuries, so there were lots of embellishments in the oral tradition. The orthodox movement cherry-picked a few stories that promoted the historicist position, but those could have been apocryphal. People love to tell stories, and cult movements are especially susceptible to making stuff up that confirms what they want to believe. So, even if there were some actual historical antecedents to the legend, what we have in modern times is probably a collection of myths that started at least two millennia ago and burgeoned into a very complex oral tradition. That is, what we can now say we know of the historical figure is largely fictional.

 

[whollygoats]

I think "Septaguint" is the most important part of your post.

Judaism was unique in its texts; any literate person could study it. And a literate person in that time and place usually meant Greek. A mixture of Greek and Jewish ideas. Cosmic Jesus seems more Greek than Jewish to me.

This is an aspect which has interested me for some years. Evidently, something less than 5% of the population of the Roman society was literate enough to read something like the Septuaguint, the Pauline epistles, or the emerging gospels. Those would generally be the educated elite and the scribal specialists, whose skill levels could vary immensely. Most writing, including all the documents mentioned were not meant for individual readers, but to be read aloud. They were meant to be public documents, read aloud to the general audience by a literate individual.

Constructing complicated narratives for public consumption would be an even more rare skill. More than just reading aloud, it would entail skills of editing and writing, redacting and rearranging; innovating with storylines to emphasize one's agenda.

Also, during the time in which the gospels evolved, the media was in transition. Scrolls had been the dominant form of archiving scripture, but incoming, and the gospels serving as early examples, were the new codex format. That change also entails de-emphasizing parchment and emphasizing papyrus. Together, the form a source of opportunity in controlling content in the process of copying, particularly from parchment rolls to papyrus codices.

Two political military events, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and, three hundred years later, the selection of christianity as the official religion of the Roman empire under Constantine, assured that the opportunity was taken. The ferment between the two events was phenomenal.

 

[humbleman]

What was the "profit" in creating a story tell about Jesus?

None.

The letters of the apostles show that obtaining power in assemblies, political power, or social revolution were not the agenda.

We have 12 apostles, some women and about 500 witnesses who saw the resurrected Christ.

From them, the leaders died tortured or under death penalty.

The followers died the same way, prosecuted and their goods taken from them.

We have similar cases from which you can recognize the difference between an ideology with a leader at front, and an ideology which was born from invention.

1)- Social equality, Martin Luther King the leader. The movement members suffered of prosecution, they persevered even after their leader was killed. The movement not only reached the fulfillment of their claims but still is existing in our society.

2)- Social equality, peace, love, main leader unknown. A movement born in blues music taverns, the members invaded parks for housing, rejected money and work, lived thanks to donations and money from their parents. It had a ridiculous agenda attacking the US army, and as a paradox in the famous Woodstock three days festival, they received medical and food assistance transported by the US army, and the hippies said "thank you". A movement which ended when parents stop sending them money.

If Jesus never existed, them the movement after the "invented story" should have expired sooner than later.

Jesus when was alive became the model to be followed. Christians don't follow ideologies, they follow the Christ first and later his ideologies.

The ones who deny the existence of Jesus have a malicious agenda, because in the bottom of their hearts they know they are lying, but because their own ideologies they prefer being liars rather than recognizing the historical presence of Jesus in the first century of this era.

If being skeptical is the rule, then show me the birth certificates of the Pilgrims, otherwise the whole thing about their arrival at Plymouth was a story tell or those people came from Mexico and not from England.

We just can't play with historical records that way.

It is acceptable to say that Jesus wasn't the son of God, that he never performed miracles, etc. But there is no reason to deny his existence, such attitude of these people is not hurting others but to themselves, because they know they are lying and suffer when others don't buy their denial commentaries.

 

[whollygoats]

What did it prophet them?

It provided them the assurance of their salvation throughout eternity. What more could they ask?

They received their facts from scripture and revelation. To them, far more divine and reliable than the claims of puny mortal historians.

They did not think that they were creating a story, but uncovering it from its camouflage amidst the scriptures, where the vipers, scribes, and pharisees had ignored it, the misguided fools.

They were guided by the Holy Spirit to reveal the gospel. It was right there, "as it is written", in the scriptures.

 

[whollygoats]

What did it prophet them?

It provided them the assurance of their salvation throughout eternity. What more could they ask?

They received their facts from scripture and revelation. To them, far more divine and reliable than the claims of puny mortal historians.

They did not think that they were creating a story, but uncovering it from its camouflage amidst the scriptures, where the vipers, scribes, and pharisees had ignored it, the misguided fools.

They were guided by the Holy Spirit to reveal the gospel. It was right there, "as it is written", in the scriptures.

I guess it was where the 'mystery' was 'hidden'. In the scriptures.

Remember: Everything is in the interpretation.

 

[whollygoats]

I voted the "likely not exist" option, but that is not necessarily to deny that there might have been one or more actual people whose existence contributed to the legend. Maybe Paul really did meet James, the brother of a man who was executed by the Roman or Jewish authorities for some offense. Or maybe it was a woman whose gender got modified by sexist male chauvinists. Jesus stories were rife in the 1st and 2nd centuries, so there were lots of embellishments in the oral tradition. The orthodox movement cherry-picked a few stories that promoted the historicist position, but those could have been apocryphal. People love to tell stories, and cult movements are especially susceptible to making stuff up that confirms what they want to believe. So, even if there were some actual historical antecedents to the legend, what we have in modern times is probably a collection of myths that started at least two millennia ago and burgeoned into a very complex oral tradition. That is, what we can now say we know of the historical figure is largely fictional.

My bolds.

Overall, I tend to agree with the tenor of your position, but I disagree on the whole 'oral tradition' thing. I think that is a false construct. I agree that there was probably LOTS of embellishment going on....on several different fronts, in several divergent interpretations. What was available to those who fashioned the epistles, and the gospels, and the subsequent works which now make up the New Testament, was a vast expanse of written tradition, readily available to the literate in Greek, highly respected in much of the Grecophonic Near East, and already long reworked and retaught in the custom of the tradition where the scriptural sources arose. We needn't rely upon any 'oral tradition'.

 

[Learner]

This is an aspect which has interested me for some years. Evidently, something less than 5% of the population of the Roman society was literate enough to read something like the Septuaguint, the Pauline epistles, or the emerging gospels. Those would generally be the educated elite and the scribal specialists, whose skill levels could vary immensely. Most writing, including all the documents mentioned were not meant for individual readers, but to be read aloud. They were meant to be public documents, read aloud to the general audience by a literate individual.

Constructing complicated narratives for public consumption would be an even more rare skill. More than just reading aloud, it would entail skills of editing and writing, redacting and rearranging; innovating with storylines to emphasize one's agenda.

Also, during the time in which the gospels evolved, the media was in transition. Scrolls had been the dominant form of archiving scripture, but incoming, and the gospels serving as early examples, were the new codex format. That change also entails de-emphasizing parchment and emphasizing papyrus. Together, the form a source of opportunity in controlling content in the process of copying, particularly from parchment rolls to papyrus codices.

Two political military events, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and, three hundred years later, the selection of christianity as the official religion of the Roman empire under Constantine, assured that the opportunity was taken. The ferment between the two events was phenomenal.

Regarding your first paragraph from an interest perspective: Less than 5% of the population of the Roman society.. "literate enough",- may seem to be a little too small perhaps when ordinary Roman soldiers for example: wrote letters to their families and vice versa and sending back care packages. Like below I remember sometime ago about preserved letters by ordinary Roman soldiers based here during ancient Britain .. and no doubt with the same emotional expressions, just as soldiers today that get deployed over the world.


Using an excerpt about the soldier Aurelios Polion,who was based in Budapest.

"Even Roman soldiers got homesick. A new translation of an 1,800-year-old letter has just been published, and it illustrates the hardships suffered by soldiers on the Roman frontier. The letter, written on papyrus, was sent by a Roman soldier serving on the frontier of the empire back to his family and laments at their lack of contact."

From the letter:

“I pray that you are in good health night and day, and I always make obeisance before all the gods on your behalf. I do not cease writing to you, but you do not have me in mind. But I do my part writing to you always and do not cease bearing you (in mind) and having you in my heart. But you never wrote to me concerning your health, how you are doing. I am worried about you because although you received letters from me often, you never wrote back to me so that I may know how you (are).”


courteousy:
Mary Beth Griggs
smithsonian.com
March 27, 2014

The letter I find with warm interest (although no surprise where modern humans are concerned): that people in the ancient world were just as we are today. No changes or evolving advances in the emotional or intellectual mental ability i.e. being just as developed then as we are today.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That is quite cool. I also enjoy seeing things like that to remind me that how similar we all are, despite differences in time or location.

 

[Horatio Parker]

This is an aspect which has interested me for some years. Evidently, something less than 5% of the population of the Roman society was literate enough to read something like the Septuaguint, the Pauline epistles, or the emerging gospels. Those would generally be the educated elite and the scribal specialists, whose skill levels could vary immensely. Most writing, including all the documents mentioned were not meant for individual readers, but to be read aloud. They were meant to be public documents, read aloud to the general audience by a literate individual.

Constructing complicated narratives for public consumption would be an even more rare skill. More than just reading aloud, it would entail skills of editing and writing, redacting and rearranging; innovating with storylines to emphasize one's agenda.

Also, during the time in which the gospels evolved, the media was in transition. Scrolls had been the dominant form of archiving scripture, but incoming, and the gospels serving as early examples, were the new codex format. That change also entails de-emphasizing parchment and emphasizing papyrus. Together, the form a source of opportunity in controlling content in the process of copying, particularly from parchment rolls to papyrus codices.

Two political military events, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and, three hundred years later, the selection of christianity as the official religion of the Roman empire under Constantine, assured that the opportunity was taken. The ferment between the two events was phenomenal.

Regarding your first paragraph from an interest perspective: Less than 5% of the population of the Roman society.. "literate enough",- may seem to be a little too small perhaps when ordinary Roman soldiers for example: wrote letters to their families and vice versa and sending back care packages. Like below I remember sometime ago about preserved letters by ordinary Roman soldiers based here during ancient Britain .. and no doubt with the same emotional expressions, just as soldiers today that get deployed over the world.


Using an excerpt about the soldier Aurelios Polion,who was based in Budapest.

"Even Roman soldiers got homesick. A new translation of an 1,800-year-old letter has just been published, and it illustrates the hardships suffered by soldiers on the Roman frontier. The letter, written on papyrus, was sent by a Roman soldier serving on the frontier of the empire back to his family and laments at their lack of contact."

From the letter:

“I pray that you are in good health night and day, and I always make obeisance before all the gods on your behalf. I do not cease writing to you, but you do not have me in mind. But I do my part writing to you always and do not cease bearing you (in mind) and having you in my heart. But you never wrote to me concerning your health, how you are doing. I am worried about you because although you received letters from me often, you never wrote back to me so that I may know how you (are).”


courteousy:
Mary Beth Griggs
smithsonian.com
March 27, 2014

The letter I find with warm interest (although no surprise where modern humans are concerned): that people in the ancient world were just as we are today. No changes or evolving advances in the emotional or intellectual mental ability i.e. being just as developed then as we are today.

You realize that these soldiers almost certainly employed a professional letter writer, don't you?

 

[Learner]

You realize that these soldiers almost certainly employed a professional letter writer, don't you?

Quite possible in some cases but does this then mean the families at the other end would employ "professional readers of letters"?


Bart Erhman was asked in an interview in relation to some of the gospels; may have been written by scribes dictated to by the composers. The question the radio interviewer asked was " How does the author know what the scribe is writing?"
B.E. then replied quite simply :

" Well ... (author/composer) he would ask him to read it back to him."

 

[Learner]

That is quite cool. I also enjoy seeing things like that to remind me that how similar we all are, despite differences in time or location.

Indeed Tom, never really given it much thought till now how interesting it is.

 

[Horatio Parker]

You realize that these soldiers almost certainly employed a professional letter writer, don't you?

Quite possible in some cases but does this then mean the families at the other end employ "professional readers of letters"?


Bart Erhman was asked in an interview in relation to some of the gospels; may have been written by scribes dictated to by the composers. The question the radio interviewer asked was " How does the author know what the scribe is writing?"
B.E. then replied quite simply :

" Well ... (author/composer) he would ask him to read it back to him."

Yes.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is an aspect which has interested me for some years. Evidently, something less than 5% of the population of the Roman society was literate enough to read something like the Septuaguint, the Pauline epistles, or the emerging gospels. Those would generally be the educated elite and the scribal specialists, whose skill levels could vary immensely. Most writing, including all the documents mentioned were not meant for individual readers, but to be read aloud. They were meant to be public documents, read aloud to the general audience by a literate individual.

Constructing complicated narratives for public consumption would be an even more rare skill. More than just reading aloud, it would entail skills of editing and writing, redacting and rearranging; innovating with storylines to emphasize one's agenda.

Also, during the time in which the gospels evolved, the media was in transition. Scrolls had been the dominant form of archiving scripture, but incoming, and the gospels serving as early examples, were the new codex format. That change also entails de-emphasizing parchment and emphasizing papyrus. Together, the form a source of opportunity in controlling content in the process of copying, particularly from parchment rolls to papyrus codices.

Two political military events, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and, three hundred years later, the selection of christianity as the official religion of the Roman empire under Constantine, assured that the opportunity was taken. The ferment between the two events was phenomenal.

Regarding your first paragraph from an interest perspective: Less than 5% of the population of the Roman society.. "literate enough",- may seem to be a little too small perhaps when ordinary Roman soldiers for example: wrote letters to their families and vice versa and sending back care packages. Like below I remember sometime ago about preserved letters by ordinary Roman soldiers based here during ancient Britain .. and no doubt with the same emotional expressions, just as soldiers today that get deployed over the world.


Using an excerpt about the soldier Aurelios Polion,who was based in Budapest.

"Even Roman soldiers got homesick. A new translation of an 1,800-year-old letter has just been published, and it illustrates the hardships suffered by soldiers on the Roman frontier. The letter, written on papyrus, was sent by a Roman soldier serving on the frontier of the empire back to his family and laments at their lack of contact."

From the letter:

“I pray that you are in good health night and day, and I always make obeisance before all the gods on your behalf. I do not cease writing to you, but you do not have me in mind. But I do my part writing to you always and do not cease bearing you (in mind) and having you in my heart. But you never wrote to me concerning your health, how you are doing. I am worried about you because although you received letters from me often, you never wrote back to me so that I may know how you (are).”


courteousy:
Mary Beth Griggs
smithsonian.com
March 27, 2014

The letter I find with warm interest (although no surprise where modern humans are concerned): that people in the ancient world were just as we are today. No changes or evolving advances in the emotional or intellectual mental ability i.e. being just as developed then as we are today.

And let's not forget Cicero, that 'everyone is writing a book.'

 

[funinspace]

What was the "profit" in creating a story tell about Jesus?

None.

The letters of the apostles show that obtaining power in assemblies, political power, or social revolution were not the agenda.

What profit did Joseph Smith have in creating his story; and what profit did his early followers have? What profit did Jim Jones have?

We have 12 apostles, some women and about 500 witnesses who saw the resurrected Christ.

Well that is the story. But what we most probably have, and most professionally recognized, is two primary sources; a Q-source and Mark, that slowly became the 4 Gospels that were later accepted into the Christian canon. Then we have the writings of Paul who by his own words never met the human Jesus.

If Jesus never existed, them the movement after the "invented story" should have expired sooner than later.

Yet, the LDS movement has similarly grown. Why didn’t it expire sooner than later?

The ones who deny the existence of Jesus have a malicious agenda, because in the bottom of their hearts they know they are lying, but because their own ideologies they prefer being liars rather than recognizing the historical presence of Jesus in the first century of this era.

Project much, you do.

 

[Wiploc]

The ones who deny the existence of Jesus have a malicious agenda, because in the bottom of their hearts they know they are lying,

I'll say goodby. I can't give you the benefit of the doubt after this.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The ones who deny the existence of Jesus have a malicious agenda, because in the bottom of their hearts they know they are lying, but because their own ideologies they prefer being liars rather than recognizing the historical presence of Jesus in the first century of this era.

Project much, you do.

I think he means the historical presence of salvific Jesus fiction in the first century CE.

Beyond that, a malicious agenda is condoning the torture and murdering of women because to you they are witches.

Seriously, the literal application of christian fiction by its fan base is a historically horrible thing.

 

[whollygoats]

We just can't play with historical records that way.

Then you need to stop playing with historical records that way....because you are.

It is acceptable to say that Jesus wasn't the son of God, that he never performed miracles, etc. But there is no reason to deny his existence, such attitude of these people is not hurting others but to themselves, because they know they are lying and suffer when others don't buy their denial commentaries.

Um...There is more evidence from 2000 years ago for Publius Vinicius the Stammerer than for Jesus.

 

[Learner]

And let's not forget Cicero, that 'everyone is writing a book.'

As evident in a llibrary where books under various titiles.. on various topics.. in various catergories.
(assuming this is what he sort of means - every aspect in life)

 

[Learner]

We just can't play with historical records that way.

Then you need to stop playing with historical records that way....because you are.

It is acceptable to say that Jesus wasn't the son of God, that he never performed miracles, etc. But there is no reason to deny his existence, such attitude of these people is not hurting others but to themselves, because they know they are lying and suffer when others don't buy their denial commentaries.

Um...There is more evidence from 2000 years ago for Publius Vinicius the Stammerer than for Jesus.

I think if you see it from the perspective like for example : there is more on Queen Elizabeth in the British records (like that of the Roman records) than there is on Sean Connery.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I replied "I'm sure he didn't exist" since I take it that we're talking about the Jesus of the Bible, and I don't believe in this particular fairy tale.

That being said, I'm also quite convinced that the story was partially based on often invented but also occasionally true biographical details of one or several existing individuals.

And just possibly, one of them may have been a truly admirable bloke.

Too bad he had to die on a cross, if that bit is true...

As we say in French, Il n'y a pas de fumée sans feu.

Oh, wait, you also say it in English! There's no smoke without a fire. Fantastic!

Who knows.
EB