Historical Jesus

[none]

Pare it down a bit, what makes their belief likely to be true?
Years of reading the bible, fabricating evidence?

 

[DrZoidberg]

But what do you mean by existed? Rambo is based on an actual person whom the writer knew and PTSD amongst Vietnam War veterans is a real thing. That doesn't make it somehow more of a biography than a fictional story, though. The Amityville Horror is "based on true events". That doesn't make any of the events in it true.

If the Bible doesn't tell a real person's story, the fact that it's loosely based on someone who might have done something similar doesn't make it an historical account of that guy.

We know the Jesus story is bullshit because it is a hagiography. It was never intended to be accurate. Rambo II is a similar work. It's a propaganda piece, written to emphasise positives and without anything negative.

 

[credoconsolans]

Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.
Feel free to check the references on the wiki page Historical reliability of the Gospels. There are more quotes and references here.

I find that hard to believe considering historians only recently discovered Pontius Pilate the man actually existed. By one inscription on a dedication. I don't recall historians finding his library full of his records of his acts while serving in Judea.

Same thing with John the Baptist. I doubt he kept any records of who he baptized.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But what do you mean by existed? Rambo is based on an actual person whom the writer knew and PTSD amongst Vietnam War veterans is a real thing. That doesn't make it somehow more of a biography than a fictional story, though. The Amityville Horror is "based on true events". That doesn't make any of the events in it true.

If the Bible doesn't tell a real person's story, the fact that it's loosely based on someone who might have done something similar doesn't make it an historical account of that guy.

We know the Jesus story is bullshit because it is a hagiography. It was never intended to be accurate. Rambo II is a similar work. It's a propaganda piece, written to emphasise positives and without anything negative.

And a story enforced by pain of death over millennia. Lots of selection pressure applied.

 

[angelo]

Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.
Feel free to check the references on the wiki page Historical reliability of the Gospels. There are more quotes and references here.

I find that hard to believe considering historians only recently discovered Pontius Pilate the man actually existed. By one inscription on a dedication. I don't recall historians finding his library full of his records of his acts while serving in Judea.

Same thing with John the Baptist. I doubt he kept any records of who he baptized.

Is there evidence that a John the Baptist existed in history? Isn't his existence just as shadowy as the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth?

 

[couch_sloth]

I find that hard to believe considering historians only recently discovered Pontius Pilate the man actually existed. By one inscription on a dedication. I don't recall historians finding his library full of his records of his acts while serving in Judea.

Same thing with John the Baptist. I doubt he kept any records of who he baptized.

Is there evidence that a John the Baptist existed in history? Isn't his existence just as shadowy as the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth?

I suspect that John the Baptist was better known than Jesus, at the time the Christian religion was first being formed.
It seems to me that the main point the Gospels make about John the Baptist is that Jesus is much more, much greater, than John.
It could be that early on, Christians were dealing with admirers of John the Baptist who thought that John was at least on par with Jesus; or who thought that Jesus was just a copy-cat of John.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It could be that early on, Christians were dealing with admirers of John the Baptist who thought that John was at least on par with Jesus; or that Jesus was just a copy-cat of John.

Robert Price theorized that John the Baptist had a following that Christians coopted by writing him into the gospels.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

From the link in the previous post:

Esteemed historical Jesus scholar E.P. Sanders of Duke University represents a consensus position when he writes that "There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity” (Sanders. The Historical Figure of Jesus.11.) Similarly, Luke Timothy Johnson writes that "Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death.", (Johnson, The Real Jesus. 121.) This is not to imply that all scholars agree about everything, but that scholars do not only just agree that Jesus lived but that a number of things can be said about him with a high degree of historical certainty.

What is this evidence that he was crucified? I've never heard that one. We know that the story of the beginning of Jesus's life is wholly fictional. There was never this census which made people travel to their birth place and there's no evidence that a village full of children was ever ordered to be slaughtered by the Roman governor of the time. Having all of this interesting stuff happen around his birth makes for a much more compelling story, though, so it was added in to make him special. If they were going to add an interesting series of events to the beginning of his life, why not add an interesting series of events to the end of his life as well? Both shoehorn the guy into an old prophecy and emphasize how super-special he was and how the powers that be feared him and worked to thwart him, so aren't we all rebellious and daring to follow the man?

If Jesus was a real person, but the events in the Bible didn't actually happen to him and it's only loosely based on some things he did with a bunch of things that he didn't actually do tossed in as well, then Jesus is about as historical as the Amityville Horror. Sure, there's a house there, but that's where the historical accuracy ends.

 

[Sarpedon]

An esteemed Dr of Theology. Sorry, but Theology isn't History. A Theologian's work is premised on the idea that religion is true and that the study of religious texts and philosophy is a valid way to understand the universe. A Dr of Theology would no more question the existence of Jesus than an Accupuncturist would question the existence of Chi.

If you are making an argument from authority, I suggest you present an authority who is a historian, not a theologian.

 

[bilby]

I find that hard to believe considering historians only recently discovered Pontius Pilate the man actually existed. By one inscription on a dedication. I don't recall historians finding his library full of his records of his acts while serving in Judea.

Same thing with John the Baptist. I doubt he kept any records of who he baptized.

Is there evidence that a John the Baptist existed in history? Isn't his existence just as shadowy as the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth?

He must have been an interesting looking chap; During the Middle Ages, there were at least four different skulls of John the Baptist held by various monasteries. Either he had at least four heads, or we can reasonably conclude that the medieval church was full of lying liars who had no qualms about lying to support their claims - that's the same medieval church that first recorded the Bible on paper, by the way. Clearly we can take the word of these guys as gospel.

 

[James Brown]

As the old saying goes, during the Middle Ages, enough churches held a sliver of Jesus' cross to reconstruct Noah's Ark.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is there evidence that a John the Baptist existed in history? Isn't his existence just as shadowy as the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth?

He must have been an interesting looking chap; During the Middle Ages, there were at least four different skulls of John the Baptist held by various monasteries. Either he had at least four heads, or we can reasonably conclude that the medieval church was full of lying liars who had no qualms about lying to support their claims - that's the same medieval church that first recorded the Bible on paper, by the way. Clearly we can take the word of these guys as gospel.

These are the same churches that have vials of blood that come back to life.

Funny shit. But also profitable.

 

[DrZoidberg]

An esteemed Dr of Theology. Sorry, but Theology isn't History. A Theologian's work is premised on the idea that religion is true and that the study of religious texts and philosophy is a valid way to understand the universe. A Dr of Theology would no more question the existence of Jesus than an Accupuncturist would question the existence of Chi.

If you are making an argument from authority, I suggest you present an authority who is a historian, not a theologian.

Yup. Theology is a non-subject. You can't study the nature of something that it's impossible to do any research on. It suffers from the same problem post-modernist feminist studies does. Since there's nothing to anchor it to the real world it'll always be nothing but word games and games of logic.

How about calling this type of research something more descriptive? "Hypothology"? "Speculology"? "alt-science-ology?"

To it's defence, all serious theological institutions aren't theological studies. Theology is only a tiny part of it. Most theological studies study the history, anthropology and psychology of religion. Fields of study with tangible evidence to work with. But then why insist on calling it theology? Why not call it "religious studies"?

 

[angelo]

Is there evidence that a John the Baptist existed in history? Isn't his existence just as shadowy as the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth?

He must have been an interesting looking chap; During the Middle Ages, there were at least four different skulls of John the Baptist held by various monasteries. Either he had at least four heads, or we can reasonably conclude that the medieval church was full of lying liars who had no qualms about lying to support their claims - that's the same medieval church that first recorded the Bible on paper, by the way. Clearly we can take the word of these guys as gospel.

There are also so many pieces of the true cross in existence scattered around Catholicism to make twenty crosses.

 

[angelo]

He must have been an interesting looking chap; During the Middle Ages, there were at least four different skulls of John the Baptist held by various monasteries. Either he had at least four heads, or we can reasonably conclude that the medieval church was full of lying liars who had no qualms about lying to support their claims - that's the same medieval church that first recorded the Bible on paper, by the way. Clearly we can take the word of these guys as gospel.

These are the same churches that have vials of blood that come back to life.

Funny shit. But also profitable.

St Genaro in a village close to Naples comes to mind. Once a year to celebrate this fraudulent priests birthday, [don't quote me on that] a vial of his solid blood is prayed to, and worshiped. If the solid dried blood liquifies, which magically does most times, everything will be fine and no disasters will ensure for the coming year. [Except when an earthquake strikes the countryside.]

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Keith&Co.]

For any reported events, if it's reported by a source closer to the event, that report is more credible.

So, Lumpy, thought of you. A nd your insistence that people closer to the time of Jesus would not be lying about Jesus.

I read this post in another thread:

I'm starting a pool on how long it takes for Trump to turn this story into one where he actually carried the firefighters out under each arm as the building collapsed behind him. I'm taking 2 years.

All that to say that I have been exposed to thousands of magas for a decade now and they tell the wildest tales about Trump. Egads. They share images of Trump painted to be young and cut and doing heroic shit or just looking heroic. It's hilarious but kind of a nightmare at the same time. Such delusion, and not only that but a sort of dynamic, constantly changing nebula of delusion as they add on more and more excuses and lies and fantasies. They add on wild embellishments from the first mention of some positive story about Trump. Ugh.

Trump is telling lies. Right now. About stuff that can be checked, about things in living memory.
People are telling lies about Trump. Right now. About stuff that can be checked, about things in living memory. About things we have video records of.
Lies do not need a hundred years or more in order to start developing. We can SEE this, right now. People lie about events they were at, or wish they had been at, or wish they hadn't been at.
Your entire defense of Jesus' historicity, built on the idea that at the base of every story, there must be SOME truth, is not reflected in the world we see around us. And never has been....

 

[steve_bank]

The hysterical Jesus?
The bi polar schizophrenic Jesus?
The Jesus who thought he was the son if a god?

Many possible interpretations in the light of modern psychology.

 

[SLD]

So, Lumpy, thought of you. A nd your insistence that people closer to the time of Jesus would not be lying about Jesus.

I read this post in another thread:

All that to say that I have been exposed to thousands of magas for a decade now and they tell the wildest tales about Trump. Egads. They share images of Trump painted to be young and cut and doing heroic shit or just looking heroic. It's hilarious but kind of a nightmare at the same time. Such delusion, and not only that but a sort of dynamic, constantly changing nebula of delusion as they add on more and more excuses and lies and fantasies. They add on wild embellishments from the first mention of some positive story about Trump. Ugh.

Trump is telling lies. Right now. About stuff that can be checked, about things in living memory.
People are telling lies about Trump. Right now. About stuff that can be checked, about things in living memory. About things we have video records of.
Lies do not need a hundred years or more in order to start developing. We can SEE this, right now. People lie about events they were at, or wish they had been at, or wish they hadn't been at.
Your entire defense of Jesus' historicity, built on the idea that at the base of every story, there must be SOME truth, is not reflected in the world we see around us. And never has been....

But there is some truth in the Trump stories. There is a Trump. At least he does exist. The stories about him are bullshit. That’s kind of how I see the historical Jesus too. I believe he did exist. The basics of the story are quite plausible. A Jewish peasant from a region know to be an anti Roman hotbed travels to Jerusalem and tries to ignite a revolt against Roman rule to re-establish the Dravidian line of kings only to find out too late that god was not on his side after all and the Romans kill him in a brutal fashion like they did all others.

We have to start with what we can establish as factual. And that is that within a generation of his supposed crucifixion, there are about a dozen biographies of him. There are letters being written about him circulating the Mediterranean world. What’s more plausible? That they all manufactured out of whole cloth what happened? Or, like the Trump stories, start with a historical figure and exaggerate what happened?

Granted we will likely never have hard evidence one way or the other, but I don’t see a complete mythical figure causing all this fuss within a generation of his death. A historical kernel of truth is more plausible.

 

[bilby]

So, Lumpy, thought of you. A nd your insistence that people closer to the time of Jesus would not be lying about Jesus.

I read this post in another thread:

All that to say that I have been exposed to thousands of magas for a decade now and they tell the wildest tales about Trump. Egads. They share images of Trump painted to be young and cut and doing heroic shit or just looking heroic. It's hilarious but kind of a nightmare at the same time. Such delusion, and not only that but a sort of dynamic, constantly changing nebula of delusion as they add on more and more excuses and lies and fantasies. They add on wild embellishments from the first mention of some positive story about Trump. Ugh.

Trump is telling lies. Right now. About stuff that can be checked, about things in living memory.
People are telling lies about Trump. Right now. About stuff that can be checked, about things in living memory. About things we have video records of.
Lies do not need a hundred years or more in order to start developing. We can SEE this, right now. People lie about events they were at, or wish they had been at, or wish they hadn't been at.
Your entire defense of Jesus' historicity, built on the idea that at the base of every story, there must be SOME truth, is not reflected in the world we see around us. And never has been....

But there is some truth in the Trump stories. There is a Trump. At least he does exist. The stories about him are bullshit. That’s kind of how I see the historical Jesus too. I believe he did exist. The basics of the story are quite plausible. A Jewish peasant from a region know to be an anti Roman hotbed travels to Jerusalem and tries to ignite a revolt against Roman rule to re-establish the Dravidian line of kings only to find out too late that god was not on his side after all and the Romans kill him in a brutal fashion like they did all others.

We have to start with what we can establish as factual. And that is that within a generation of his supposed crucifixion, there are about a dozen biographies of him. There are letters being written about him circulating the Mediterranean world. What’s more plausible? That they all manufactured out of whole cloth what happened? Or, like the Trump stories, start with a historical figure and exaggerate what happened?

Granted we will likely never have hard evidence one way or the other, but I don’t see a complete mythical figure causing all this fuss within a generation of his death. A historical kernel of truth is more plausible.

Who gives a shit?

What possible difference would it make to anything whether Jesus is purely fictional, or based on a real person or persons?

It's unlikely that any fictional character is pure fiction. Superman is based on real people, which is why he looks like a Homo Sapiens, despite being from another planet. But what important changes does that knowledge make to our understanding of the life of Clark Kent? Or to our understanding of ourselves?

The whole question is back door Christianity - You cannot prove that Jesus isn't real, therefore not only am I justified in my faith, but I am justified in claiming that you're a believer too, and therefore it's perfectly reasonable for me to prohibit you from having an abortion. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. etc. etc.

Jesus is fictional. It's probably more important whether Superman is based on a real person than it is whether Jesus was. That is to say, neither question is even worth the effort of asking, unless in support of a hidden agenda.