The Historicity of Jesus Christ

[Kafka]

An atheist who considers the gospels to be nothing more than urban legend can nonetheless apply the lessons and morals of the New Testament to modern life.

^^^^Quoted for truth.

There's a LOT of really good stuff in the New Testament. A lot of really good ways to live. Whether Jesus was real or not or whether Jesus said most of the things attributed to him matters not one whit to the moral impact of the teachings.

NOW, that being said, Wikipedia Scholar Cypress has a valid point that it IS fun to find evidence that famous people of antiquity actually existed.

When I go to Paris for work I love to go to St Denis north of the city and visit the Basilica (first Gothic Cathedral in Europe!) and I KNOW that likely St. Denis ACTUALLY EXISTED. But it's pretty easy to dismiss the stories that after he had his head cut off he picked it up and walked to the site of the current basilica and asked that a church be built there.

It's the same sort of thing. Yeah, it's SUPER cool that St. Denis was real, but the stories are clearly NOT.

No Christian has any need to compete with any other faith or set of beliefs as to how "well attested in writing" Jesus is for the message to continue resonating.

To be fair to CHRISTIANS it is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that Jesus be 100% real and "as advertised", a god-man. The stories are critically true. The coming back from the dead etc.

So to that end sometimes the moral teachings take a back seat.

 

[Kafka]

Even prominent atheist religious scholars like Bart Ehrman laugh at the idea that this body of written attestations are only just the result of a vast web of lies and a Mediterranean-wide conspiracy.

I'm always fascinated at your insistence that either it's all true or it was the result of a "conspiracy".

Why can't parts be true and parts be false by accident? Or what if the individual ANONYMOUS authors of the Gospels gilded the lily and created more of a story than there was? OR, what if they MISHEARD stories that were passed down for decades before the authors wrote?

Take my example of St. Denis. As I noted earlier when I go to Paris for work I love to go north of the city to the Basilica of St. Denis. I think it is reasonable to assume St. Denis was quite real. What I don't believe is that upon having his head cut off he walked to the site of the current basilica holding his head and preaching a sermon.

No grand conspiracy. A story rose up about a religious figure and stuff was added onto it.

But more to your actual point: If Jesus was real and the SOURCES almost always include things we know are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to have happened then I think we are in fine shape to question how much we ACTUALLY know about the historical Jesus.

The miracles and the divinity of Jesus are later interpretations that serve theological purposes. That is not the topic of the thread.
The topic is, did he exist.

I know that you and I are much closer to agreement than disagreement on this (despite your raging hatred of me which you can't get past). I am more than happy to consider Jesus a likely real person. And, yeah, that's super cool.

But the reason it doesn't amp me up the way it does you is that in the scheme of things it doesn't really matter. Yeah, I'm fine with a dude named Joshua wandering Palestine preaching an apocalyptic religion. What I'm not sure about are much if any of the DETAILS.

I am more interested in the qualities of the teachings than I am just toting up who was real and who was fictional.

But I totally understand your point. And I agree. It is cool that he was likely real.

 

[Kafka]

@Cypress I have a VERY SERIOUS POINT here.

You dismiss out of hand literally EVERYTHING I SAY because I once had a sock on this forum. You accuse me of lying non-stop. So when I post something you automatically dismiss it because you think I have lied so nothing I say can be true.

BUT you are shown a story about a man who walked on water, healed lepers, fed thousands with a couple of fish a loaf of bread and you assume that THE PARTS OF THE STORY YOU LIKE ARE REAL.

I am curious why you don't apply your rule of dismissing those that are shown to not tell a truth in whole or part?

 

[Cypress]

I'm always fascinated at your insistence that either it's all true or it was the result of a "conspiracy".

If you lied in your first sentence, there is no motivation for me to read the rest.

I have never said everything in the Gospel accounts are "all true". I have at least six billion posts on this board stating that the Gospels have to be mined for tidbits of historical data, in between the miracles, resurrections, and the embellishments.

 

[Kafka]

The Gospels an

I noted you "laughed" at my serious question. I find it interesting because I KEEP finding cases where you don't consistently apply your own ideals.

You call yourself an agnostic but you don't apply it consistently and any time you are asked to you lose your shit.

You blather on all the time about the moral teachings of Jesus but you don't seem to live by them.

Now you are claiming you believe the Gospels despite the fact that SOME of them must be made up and therefore run afoul of your hatred of all people who are dishonest.

I think I know what really pisses you off: being caught out. That's why you hate me so much but get along with truly repulsive people like Hume and Doc Dutch. They aren't smart enough to catch you out.

I am.

That's what more education could have done for you, Cypress. Too bad you couldn't hack it.

 

[Kafka]

If you lied in your first sentence, there is no motivation for me to read the rest.

I have never said everything in the Gospel accounts are "all true". I have at least six billion posts on this board stating that the Gospels have to be mined for tidbits of historical data, in between the miracles, resurrections, and the embellishments.

If part of the Gospels are untrue why do you treat them differently than you treat me. You discount EVERYTHING I say because you think I was untruthful at some point.

Really inconsistent of you, but understandable since you don't really seem to think very deeply about anything

 

[Kafka]

Hey, @Cypress, there's a reason that Jesus guy you go on and on and on about said what he said in Matthew 5:44.

You might want to try UNDERSTANDING what this Jesus guy was all about considering how seriously you take his existence. If you think he was real then you have ZERO excuse to ignore his teachings.

Yet you do.

And, again, Obtenebrator finds an INCONSISTENTCY in Cypress "beliefs".

This is easy!

 

[Kafka]

@Cypress thanks for the admission that I'm right. You need say nothing more

You and I both know the truth.

Don't feel bad about yourself or your general lack of intellect. You actually seem like you COULD learn if you applied yourself a bit.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope.

Jesus, as a character in the Bible, has a message that resonates more with Christians than does anything from Socrates, Buddha, et. al. and that message resonates without confirmation of Jesus' historicity as an actual person.

An atheist who considers the gospels to be nothing more than urban legend can nonetheless apply the lessons and morals of the New Testament to modern life.

No Christian has any need to compete with any other faith or set of beliefs as to how "well attested in writing" Jesus is for the message to continue resonating.

The question of whether or not Jesus existed is irrelevant in a discussion about his divinity, message, what Christians think he is, etc.

 

[EdwinA]

https://ms.augsburgfortress.org/downloads/9780800611361Contents.pdf

Table of Contents
Translators’ note
Editions used
Abbreviations
PART ONE: ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE CITY OF JERUSALEM
1. Industries
2. Commerce
3. Foreign Visitors
PART TWO: ECONOMIC STATUS
4. The Rich
5. The Middle Class
6. The Poor
7. Decisive Factors in Determining the Economic Circumstances of the People of Jerusalem
PART THREE: SOCIAL STATUS
8. The Clergy
9. The Lay Nobility
10. The Scribes
11. The Pharisees
PART FOUR: THE MAINTENANCE OF RACIAL PURITY
12. The Structure of the National Community
13. Israelites of Pure Ancestry
14. Despised Trades and Jewish Slaves
15. Illegitimate Israelites
16. Gentile Slaves
17. The Samaritans
18. The Social Position of Women

Makes a lot of the obscure historical and cultural references in the NT less puzzling and confusing, and highlights the fact that the 4 Gospels were written by knowledgeable educated Jews and not just random con men hundreds of years later.

Another clue is the use of elaborate chiastic structures in the literature that is in line with the literary structures of the OT as well. Mathew is of particular note re literary structures. Those used in both the OT and NT are much more sophisticated than use used by the ancient Greeks and the others known to use such literary devices. they also help to make more sense of the writings, which in modern times tend to be cited as just some collection of individual verses instead of a complete well organized whole.

pdf download for those with phones who don't like pdf's:

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=jats

 

[Hume]

The question of whether or not Jesus existed is irrelevant in a discussion about his divinity, message, what Christians think he is, etc.

"Who do they say I am?" Son of God?

 

[Kafka]

Makes a lot of the obscure historical and cultural references in the NT less puzzling and confusing, and highlights the fact that the 4 Gospels were written by knowledgeable educated Jews and not just random con men.

Why do people always assume that if the Gospels aren't true it is either a "conspiracy" or a "con"?

Why couldn't the stories that wound up in the Gospels be a mix of SOME real stuff (like a real dude named Joshua who was a preacher) and some stuff that got integrated over time through mishearings of people "gilding the lily" to make a stronger point.

People in the ancient world could EASILY pass along stories of miracles and BELIEVE THEY WERE SPEAKING TRUTHFULLY. Ergo NOT a con, NOT a lie, NOT a conspiracy.

Just a game of multi-decadal telephone.

Another clue is the use of elaborate chiastic structures in the literature that is in line with the literary structures of the OT as well.

The structure of Hebrew poetry and other writing styles in the OT is fascinating. I can't claim to understand it but from what I gather it actually adds a cool dimension to the otherwise often dull or confusing reading of the OT.

Mathew is of particular note re literary structures. Those used in both the OT and NT are much more sophisticated than use used by the ancient Greeks and the others known to use such literary devices. they also help to make more sense of the writings, which in modern times tend to be cited as just some collection of individual verses instead of a complete well organized whole.

But the fact remains that even the OLDEST Gospel is still separated from Christ's life by a couple of decades. Imagine if you were tasked with writing the history of something you never witnessed that happened 40 years ago.

There's obviously TRUE stuff in the Gospels. And there's obviously MADE UP stuff in the Gospels. Finding evidence of the former does not necessarily make the latter true.

 

[dancindave]

Interpreting things differently doesn't change what was said or written, it suggests there are other meanings possible since there are a minimum of 1,064 methods used daily to keep great great grandchildren honoring their previous 4 generation gaps forward until they become 1 of 16 great great grandparents themselves saving family traditions of ignoring now is eternity.

So this pyramid scheme has been a geometrically multiplicative calculation interpreting daily changes in sociopsychopathilogical homicidal human farming traditions methodically for eternity......

 

[EdwinA]

But the fact remains that even the OLDEST Gospel is still separated from Christ's life by a couple of decades. Imagine if you were tasked with writing the history of something you never witnessed that happened 40 years ago.

It was written down later; it is from the older oral reports from eyewitnesses, as are the other 3 books. Not everyone was literate in ancient times even in a Jewish temple state; teachers cost money, and mostly it is wealthy people and their children who are literate or promising students financed by wealthy people, so much was still transmitted orally. Social class played a big role even on which parts of the Temple one could go to, same with synagogues.


There is also the use of literary devices and symbolism through out both the old and new testaments to make multiple levels of teaching and content, so as to say a whole lot in as few words as possible, so much of what you consider 'fables' had a lot of higher points being made in the writings you aren't necessarily getting for a variety of reasons, not being trained in Hebrew religious studies and language use, and of course the cultural references are also lost on those not brought up in their traditions, so they aren't necessarily lying or making stuff up. There are 4 'voices' in the OT being used, for example, in many sections all are in use.

 

[Kafka]

It was written down later; it is from the older oral reports from eyewitnesses

Hence my comment of the multidecadal game of telephone.

, as are the other 3 books. Not everyone was literate in ancient times even in a Jewish temple state; teachers cost money, and mostly it is wealthy people and their children who are literate or promising students financed by wealthy people, so much was still transmitted orally. Social class played a big role even on which parts of the Temple one could go to, same with synagogues.

And that's precisely why I don't see the "made up" parts of the Gospel as being a "con" or a "conspiracy". I seem them as natural outgrowths of stories passed along by particularly credulous people.

 

[EdwinA]

Hence my comment of the multidecadal game of telephone.

Highly doubtful they would be distorted in that short period of time. I also don't see highly superstitious people just throwing in their own fantasies and dressing it up just for their amusement. This also why the Constantine wouldn't have dared demand all the bishop rewrite anything just to suit himself.

 

[Kafka]

Highly doubtful they would be distorted in that short period of time.

Oh I have zero doubt of it. Eye witness testimony is classically known to be unreliable. As memories are dredged up each time the brain makes subtle changes. If an eye witness to a crime 6 months in the past can't really be counted on to be perfectly accurate how could something 40-50 years in the past be so?

I also don't see highly superstitious people just throwing in their own fantasies and dressing it up just for their amusement.

Not for their amusement, but if you don't see people leveraging their fantasies then you aren't familiar with the history of many religions. Take mormonism. I suspect Smith was out to "con" in that case, but either way it was wholly made up and thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people today believe it was true.

In the ancient world it would be QUITE easy for a misinterpretation or a mishearing or even a misremembering or even an imaginary thought to work its way into the story as it wended its way through the maze of time.

And the people would have zero reason to NOT believe it. They believed in miracles. Science wasn't really a "thing".

This also why the Constantine wouldn't have dared demand all the bishop rewrite anything just to suit himself.

Constantine could easily have elevated Christianity as the sole religion in a political power play (as some scholars believe). Or maybe he TRULY CONVERTED and became a lover of Christ.

What I'm reasonably certain of is he didn't get an ACTUAL sign from God. If he honestly thought he did he was mistaken.

Again, so many of these events may very well be "real" or "honestly believed". And for the normal non-walking-on-water, non-miracle stuff I have little problem with it. Sure it calls into question the whole thing if some parts are clearly made up, but there's no reason to believe the whole thing is made up. Like some novels today leverage real people and real places and make up additional stuff.

 

[serenity]

So this pyramid scheme has been a geometrically multiplicative calculation interpreting daily changes in sociopsychopathilogical homicidal human farming traditions methodically for eternity......

Since now is physically eternity as genetics demonstrates daily by chromosomes compounding per conception so far mapping DNA sequences to current population choosing to die in intellectual typecasting roles of a lifetime daily, just how do you wish to calculate your pyramid of misdirections as I discuss humanity is historically divided by a minimum of 1.064 ideologies.

21 spiritual and a 1,043 political as both are wrapped around economics to keep everyone living following rule of law in each dystopian society today.

See where I don't discuss exceptions or exemptions of my own ancestry? I describe myself as a basic one male displacement adapting in series parallel space equally timed apart as all living things native to this universal position daily.

what makes me exceptional is I am the only one honest about it. But exceptions are exempt from the natural time adapting equally alive today.

I am a person in the middle class grandparent stage of evolution. Humanity is governing where my 3 year old grandchild will mostly never become a parent. let alone an adult.

I understand how people treat someone that can identify how corruption is self evident. It is a 2,050 year old story line.

 

[EdwinA]

Not for their amusement, but if you don't see people leveraging their fantasies then you aren't familiar with the history of many religions. Take mormonism. I suspect Smith was out to "con" in that case, but either way it was wholly made up and thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people today believe it was true.

In the ancient world it would be QUITE easy for a misinterpretation or a mishearing or even a misremembering or even an imaginary thought to work its way into the story as it wended its way through the maze of time.

And the people would have zero reason to NOT believe it. They believed in miracles. Science wasn't really a "thing".

And all thieves think everybody else is one, too.

Somebody said they don't believe in the 'Jesus walked on the water' story literally. That misses the point; in Jewish thought land represented the real, normal world, while the sea represented chaos in the spiritual world. The story is meant to convey that God is able to overcome the spiritual uncertainty, and so can believers, hence Peter makes the effort and does so too. Is that a lie?

Scholars in those days were well trained in memory devices and techniques, unlike today where schools don't teach memorization skills. It was a highly developed skill in ancient times among scholars. Written works were expensive.

 

[ZenMode]

"Who do they say I am?" Son of God?

Not sure what you're getting at....