Historical Jesus

[Horatio Parker]

As you very well know, the King David crap was put in later and is part of the myth-making that is set off by hugely popular figures. Anyway, given the nature of monarchs, most people are descended from them - it is difficult NOT to be descended from Charlemagne for instance. The scholarly status of persons who once posted here is not obvious to me, so I can't comment. You should use your intelligence, not look for evidence that, in the nature of things, doesn't exist. If you did a census of First-Century Palestinians re literacy, well done - don't keep it to yourself any more,

What non-existing evidence am I searching for?

 

[funinspace]

What, being descended from king David isn't enough?

I would guess that Platos establishing the Academy had more to do with his writings preservation than his lineage.

Anyway, you're assuming historical Jesus was the gospel figure. Perhaps his origins weren't so humble. There used to be a poster here who argued that the Jesus story was a reworking of the execution by the Romans of Antigonus, the last Hasmonean king, in 37 BC.

According to the gospels, Jesus was literate. That alone puts him in an elite, probably less than 5% of the population.

According to the gospels, his followers were Jews. Judaism was dependent on written texts. That his followers would suddenly rely on oral tradition strains credulity.



Besides, how else can we look for evidence.

As you very well know, the King David crap was put in later and is part of the myth-making that is set off by hugely popular figures. Anyway, given the nature of monarchs, most people are descended from them - it is difficult NOT to be descended from Charlemagne for instance. The scholarly status of persons who once posted here is not obvious to me, so I can't comment. You should use your intelligence, not look for evidence that, in the nature of things, doesn't exist. If you did a census of First-Century Palestinians re literacy, well done - don't keep it to yourself any more,

I fully agree that a non-magical Jesus human wouldn't stand much chance leaving a trace of himself from this backwater part of the Roman Empire, even if he could read. However, in the context of the three headed omni-god, it seems kind of weird that nary a thing outside of the writings of this new way, was left behind. Pretty much nothing contemporary to Jesus' time exists. After all those bad Jews that were led out of Egypt were given massive magic tricks left and right showing them that Yahweh was truly a powerful god. And these Jews still had freewill to do stupid stuff. And boy they did. Yahweh could barely start his nap, when these idiots smelted themselves a golden calf. We know of Pontius Pilot from Roman records. How hard would it have been for this omni-god to make Pilot write a letter back to Rome commenting on the Jews demanding he kill this weird but harmless Jesus dude? After al,l this omni-god dicked around within a pharaoh's head. And how hard would it be for this omni-god to make sure this letter survived the ravages of time? If this omni-god, of this holy book, really wanted more freewill followers its game plan was pretty damn shitty. There are lots of ways an omni-god could have left a few clues that would speak volumes to the world, if it was real and actually intended what is written in this holy book. The reality is far closer to a tragic comedy, than a game plan to maximize freewill salvation.

 

[Horatio Parker]

A non existing Roman soldier:

https://100falcons.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/a-real-letter-from-a-roman-soldier/

 

[Lion IRC]

A letter written not by the (supposed) Roman soldier but by some third person.
Yes, I can see how we might question whether that soldier was a real or invented character.

 

[Horatio Parker]

A letter written not by the (supposed) Roman soldier but by some third person.
Yes, I can see how we might question whether that soldier was a real or invented character.

Depends what you mean by "written". By your definition, Henry James didn't write his own book "The Ambassadors" (it was dictated).

I think it more likely that ancient obscure people were sometimes documented.

That's not proof wrt Jesus either way, but it does show that you don't have to be an aristocrat to leave a document trail.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

We have equal or more evidence for the Jesus miracles than we have for most historical facts from that period.

Correction: The claim = Jesus did perform the miracle acts. The refutation = "Miraculous acts have not been proven to happen despite numerous claims of miracles throughout history."

But there's evidence in some cases, such as this one.

Insufficient to prove your proposition.

You throw around the word "prove" as if everything from history has been proved as an absolute certainty. Don't you understand that most of our recognized history has NOT been "proved" with certainty?

Nothing is being thrown around except unfounded claims about miraculous events being real because this is described in the Gospels.

By saying 'prove' I meant 'established'

In other words you have not established a case for the reality of the miraculous events described in the bible.

We have more evidence for the Jesus miracles than we have for most of our historical facts from 1000+ years ago. Semantical quibbling over the difference between "prove" and "establish" does not change this. There's no reason to toss out this evidence, or pretend it doesn't exist. Unless you want to eliminate most of our accepted historical record for those times.

The reason for this failure has been pointed out numerous times: a lack of corroborating evidence, . . .

Again, for most of our historical facts from the period there is no "corroborating" evidence. For some major events there is such evidence, but not for most of the millions/billions of facts which are accepted.

. . . there are no eyewitness testimonials from various independent sources, . . .

Again, for most of our accepted historical facts from that period there are no eyewitness testimonials. Virtually all the documents we rely on for the historical events are from non-eyewitnesses.

. . . just copies of copies of an earlier work based on oral accounts, . . .

If you mean manuscripts, that's all we have for ANY historical facts from those times. There are no original documents from the original writer. Only copies of copies of an original which perished.

And virtually ALL the documents for any historical facts are based on oral accounts the writers had, but also some of them, and the gospel writings, made use of some earlier written accounts, mostly which did not survive.

. . . and probably, based on evidence embellished with each version.

The same is true of ANY accounts or sources for historical facts we accept, from that period. There is no way to "establish" or "prove" that the final documents we have for those events were not embellishments from earlier accounts.

The writers usually had only INdirect access to the facts they reported. Direct knowledge or connection to those facts was the rare exception.

There IS sufficient evidence to "prove" the resurrection and other miracles of Jesus, in a loose sense of "prove" -- like there's sufficient evidence to "prove" much of our accepted history. But MOST of this recorded history can be disputed, especially the part 1000+ years ago. There is EVIDENCE, but not usually "proof" beyond any doubt.

No, there is not.

Yes, there is, just as for most of our accepted historical facts. You have to toss out MOST of our recorded history for those times if you toss out the sources we have for the Jesus miracles.

Not in any sense of the word, or if you care to use the world 'established' - the case for the reality of the resurrection and the other miracles has not been established.

Yes, the case has been made that those events did happen. The case has been "established" like it has been for most of the historical facts we accept from the period. Again, some standard historical facts have more sources, but most do not.

The only evidence for any historical events is the written record, from the period, saying the events happened.

For miracle claims, extra evidence is necessary, which we do have for the Jesus miracle claims. But which we do not have for other miracle legends from the period.

 

[angelo]

The simple facts are that had Jesus really existed, and was/is the son of the creator of the universe, an all knowing, all powerful god, then surely father and son could see what would happen just a mere two thousand years later.

In this case, wouldn't they assure that the " facts" would survive any controversy and survive intact throughout the millenniums? Better still, pop into the xtian world every now and then to assure the believers of their faith that they exist?

 

[iolo]

As you very well know, the King David crap was put in later and is part of the myth-making that is set off by hugely popular figures. Anyway, given the nature of monarchs, most people are descended from them - it is difficult NOT to be descended from Charlemagne for instance. The scholarly status of persons who once posted here is not obvious to me, so I can't comment. You should use your intelligence, not look for evidence that, in the nature of things, doesn't exist. If you did a census of First-Century Palestinians re literacy, well done - don't keep it to yourself any more,

What non-existing evidence am I searching for?

Evidence of anyone who is not rich and powerful, unless he/she was involved with someone who was. Jesus wasn't.

 

[iolo]

As you very well know, the King David crap was put in later and is part of the myth-making that is set off by hugely popular figures. Anyway, given the nature of monarchs, most people are descended from them - it is difficult NOT to be descended from Charlemagne for instance. The scholarly status of persons who once posted here is not obvious to me, so I can't comment. You should use your intelligence, not look for evidence that, in the nature of things, doesn't exist. If you did a census of First-Century Palestinians re literacy, well done - don't keep it to yourself any more,

I fully agree that a non-magical Jesus human wouldn't stand much chance leaving a trace of himself from this backwater part of the Roman Empire, even if he could read. However, in the context of the three headed omni-god, it seems kind of weird that nary a thing outside of the writings of this new way, was left behind. Pretty much nothing contemporary to Jesus' time exists. After all those bad Jews that were led out of Egypt were given massive magic tricks left and right showing them that Yahweh was truly a powerful god. And these Jews still had freewill to do stupid stuff. And boy they did. Yahweh could barely start his nap, when these idiots smelted themselves a golden calf. We know of Pontius Pilot from Roman records. How hard would it have been for this omni-god to make Pilot write a letter back to Rome commenting on the Jews demanding he kill this weird but harmless Jesus dude? After al,l this omni-god dicked around within a pharaoh's head. And how hard would it be for this omni-god to make sure this letter survived the ravages of time? If this omni-god, of this holy book, really wanted more freewill followers its game plan was pretty damn shitty. There are lots of ways an omni-god could have left a few clues that would speak volumes to the world, if it was real and actually intended what is written in this holy book. The reality is far closer to a tragic comedy, than a game plan to maximize freewill salvation.

Ask those who believe in the Omni-god about all this. I'm interested only in the problem of who, if Jesus didn't exist, stood to gain from making him up. I can think of no-one.

 

[Horatio Parker]

What non-existing evidence am I searching for?

Evidence of anyone who is not rich and powerful, unless he/she was involved with someone who was. Jesus wasn't.

I'm not searching for anything, far as I can tell. But the evidence, or lack of it, is stronger for the mythical Jesus argument than against. There many obscure ancients who were documented. Again, that alone doesn't prove anything, but neither does asserting that evidence for an obscure figure could not exist. Especially if that figure had a following raised in a tradition that valued religious writing such as the Jews.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm interested only in the problem of who, if Jesus didn't exist, stood to gain from making him up. I can think of no-one.

You're assuming the authors intention. How do you know he intended his story to be taken as history?

 

[none]

I tend to think of the story being generated to upset the status quo, at least the first mention of Jesus and Paul too
The latter stories being generated because people wanted more information
Supply and demand
It's a story where no one can be held accountable

 

[Horatio Parker]

I tend to think of the story being generated to upset the status quo, at least the first mention of Jesus and Paul too
The latter stories being generated because people wanted more information
Supply and demand
It's a story where no one can be held accountable

There used to be a poster here who opined that gMark, usually considered to be the first, was written in Alexandria as a Gnostic refutation of Judaism. I dunno if that's the case, but it makes sense.

 

[bilby]

Ask those who believe in the Omni-god about all this. I'm interested only in the problem of who, if Jesus didn't exist, stood to gain from making him up. I can think of no-one.

You lack imagination.

If Batman didn't exist, who stood to gain from making him up? Bob Kane, Bill Finger, DC Comics, dozens of artists and writers, and millions of fans all gained - some financially, some through being able to express their ideas to a wide audience, and some from merely being entertained by some good storytelling.

The existence of popular stories is not evidence that they describe real characters or events; And the idea that nobody gains from the creation of fictional works unless they describe factual events or persons is frankly bizarre.

Telling stories - often tall tales with no factual basis whatsoever, designed only to make an emotional impact on the audience - is practically the defining trait of humanity. Telling stories is what sets us apart - Other animals use tools; Other animals communicate; Other animals are intelligent, or bipedal, or numerous; But no other species (as far as we are aware) tells stories. It's our thing. It's what we do.

Who, if Jesus didn't exist, stood to gain from making him up? Everyone who contributed to the narrative, and everyone who has had a positive emotional response to the stories about him. Just like with every other fictional character in human history, from Beowulf to Doctor Who.

 

[angelo]

The differences there are that a living being played Beowulf and many living beings have played the Dr Who character over the years.

The Jesus character had no living being behind it as far as history goes. All it has are ghost stories, and ghosts don't exist.

 

[iolo]

I'm interested only in the problem of who, if Jesus didn't exist, stood to gain from making him up. I can think of no-one.

You're assuming the authors intention. How do you know he intended his story to be taken as history?

Author of what? The brilliant plotter who organised it all had to find four novelists-before-the novel, a lot of letter-writers and a weirdo reacting to political imprisonment . Where did he get the money, and what did he get out of it? Popular history is what it reads like. and leads naturally to what we find out from written sources later, surely?

- - - Updated - - -

The differences there are that a living being played Beowulf and many living beings have played the Dr Who character over the years.

The Jesus character had no living being behind it as far as history goes. All it has are ghost stories, and ghosts don't exist.

Read Beowulf and then read Mark's Gospel. If you can't see the difference, you need critical training.

 

[Horatio Parker]

You're assuming the authors intention. How do you know he intended his story to be taken as history?

Author of what? The brilliant plotter who organised it all had to find four novelists-before-the novel, a lot of letter-writers and a weirdo reacting to political imprisonment . Where did he get the money, and what did he get out of it? Popular history is what it reads like. and leads naturally to what we find out from written sources later, surely?

Are you being coy? Mark, of course.

I'm not aware of any plots, you'll have to fill me in.

My point, again, is that we don't know anything about the author of gMark or his motives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iolo]

Author of what? The brilliant plotter who organised it all had to find four novelists-before-the novel, a lot of letter-writers and a weirdo reacting to political imprisonment . Where did he get the money, and what did he get out of it? Popular history is what it reads like. and leads naturally to what we find out from written sources later, surely?

Are you being coy? Mark, of course.

I'm not aware of any plots, you'll have to fill me in.

My point, again, is that we don't know anything about the author of gMark or his motives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We might, surely, make an informed guess? Like all decent people, he wanted to spread socialism - in the terms understood in his time.

 

[Malintent]

So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?
I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,

What evidence do you have to support the claim there is no $1,000,000 dept you owe me. I anxiously await your failure to provide that evidence so I can collect my money from you! Or, does it maybe not quite work that way, hmm? Can you explain why that might be?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ask those who believe in the Omni-god about all this. I'm interested only in the problem of who, if Jesus didn't exist, stood to gain from making him up. I can think of no-one.

You lack imagination.

If Batman didn't exist, who stood to gain from making him up? Bob Kane, Bill Finger, DC Comics, dozens of artists and writers, and millions of fans all gained - some financially, some through being able to express their ideas to a wide audience, and some from merely being entertained by some good storytelling.

The existence of popular stories is not evidence that they describe real characters or events; And the idea that nobody gains from the creation of fictional works unless they describe factual events or persons is frankly bizarre.

Telling stories - often tall tales with no factual basis whatsoever, designed only to make an emotional impact on the audience - is practically the defining trait of humanity. Telling stories is what sets us apart - Other animals use tools; Other animals communicate; Other animals are intelligent, or bipedal, or numerous; But no other species (as far as we are aware) tells stories. It's our thing. It's what we do.

Who, if Jesus didn't exist, stood to gain from making him up? Everyone who contributed to the narrative, and everyone who has had a positive emotional response to the stories about him. Just like with every other fictional character in human history, from Beowulf to Doctor Who.

Those emotionally invested in the pursuit of a historical godman are already so off the path of reason and fact that they no longer know they are. It's precisely their failure to recognize their irrational behavior that took them off the path in the first place.

It can only be a lack of mature mental development that would cause a person to accept literally that such fantastic nonsense actually occurs. Understandable of course in children, but that it carries over into adulthood for so many I find stupefyingly and utterly fascinating, but perhaps most importantly a revealing window into the development of our species. It is certainly a real phenomenon that cannot be denied.