Is there an historical and living Jesus?

[ronan]

Ronan, I am not a biblical scholar (nor have i even read the Bible) but there are sound, logical reasons for my conclusion, which i may elaborate on later.

Me neither I am not a biblical scholar, I just read genesis some time ago and some fragment of the new testament.
Regarding my personal opinion concerning the existence of Jesus:
I also believe he existed. (Maybe he did not heal a blind man but I believe that he at least shake the world of his time by his revolutionary idea)
I am open to any argument that would make his existence less clear.
Does someone have one of them?

Thor, why not? Probably not
Shakespeare, why not? YES
Socrates, why not? YES
Hercules, why not? Probably not
Mr Hide (Hyde), why not? Probably not


The difference is if we add 'based on'\ loosely based on or inspred by. IOW was Mr. Hyde based on an actual person with creative liscense added to create a story? It is very possible. Here we are talking about something a little different though.

Right, it is different her even if probably what we know of Jesus (that he heal a blind man and that he came back to life) is not describing him completely , it is in fact probable that the authors added extra events (probably like Mr Hide)
in fact in the case of Mr Hide, the author do not want us to believe that he existed. (I think so, I did not read that neither)

If the question is? Was there an actual being over 2k years ago claiming to be JC then the answer is obviously yes. What else you believe in addition to that is up to you.

I agree but if the jesus is just a common man it is not anymore jesus.
To say that Jesus existed, we have to attribute some characteristics common to what people think he is.
For example if jesus was finaly a woman born in South Africa taken as slave for the Roman emperor, then we cannot say that Jesus existed as Jesus (the one we believe now)

So maybe we have to first answer : what is the minimum characteristics of Jesus that would make us recognize him.?

Then we can look for the existence of a human with this characteristics.

Here is a list of characteristsics describing Jesus(to be completed and edited):
+ male
- jewish
+ revolutionary
- healer
+ leader
- crucifixed
- philosopher
+ called Jesus
+ existed 2000 years ago

The + represent the minimum characteristic

so the question of the existence of Jesus could be restated as:

Did a revolutionary man called Jesus who leads some people 2000 years ago existed?

I don't have enough knowledge about Jesus and I think the minimum characteristic can be refined.

 

[Noone special]

Did a revolutionary man named Jesus lead people in Palestine some 2000 years ago?

I could come up with no other reasonable explaination for the impact/movement that happened around the same time. However, I don't think this adds any credible evidence to Jesus being God, or doing miracles or ressurecting.

After all, around the time of Jesus there were many who rose up and claimed to be the messiah and had many people follow them. There was a general move towards revolt of their roman leaders amongst the Jews. In fact, it has been theorized that the followers of Jesus during His life thought that his goal was to overthrow the roman government.

My point is that showing that a man existed whom we can attribute these bare minimum traits to would not be a hard thing at all. If he is really Jesus, then he is really God, not merely a historical man. The real argument is over the supernatural. No matter how much "imperical evidence" points toward a supernatural event, whatever theory will explain the event in natural terms, however improbable, will seem more probable to those who rule out the option of the supernatural.
I'm saying that it's futile to discuss the probability of a man who was God, if you completely rule it out before the discussion.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Did a revolutionary man named Jesus lead people in Palestine some 2000 years ago?

*************
M*W: There have been no Roman records of his crucifixion. The Romans had scribes who were adept at documenting everything. I bet you can't find the crucifixion records ot the two thieves either. There are only distant reports of Jesus sometime after 70 CE but no eye-witnesses. The literature, however, has distant stories told of a few eye-witnesses who, themselves, may not have existed. I could go on, but there are so many contradictions in the bible that you can find in books and on the web.

I could come up with no other reasonable explaination for the impact/movement that happened around the same time.

*************
M*W: Absolutely nothing was written "around the same time" that Jesus was supposed to have lived.

However, I don't think this adds any credible evidence to Jesus being God, or doing miracles or ressurecting.

*************
M*W: No, that's exactly what makes any evidence incredible. John Dominic Crossan, a well-known, peer-reviewed christian biblical scholar has brought the point up about reviving christianity and what that will need to be successful. He says, and I'm quoting this from memory, that three things need to take place in the christian church to bring it to the modern age. They are:

1) To rethink the virgin birth,
2) To remove the resurrection,
3) and to forget the assension.

This topic has also been addressed by John Shelby Spong, another prominent christian author.

After all, around the time of Jesus there were many who rose up and claimed to be the messiah and had many people follow them.

*************
M*W: I'd like to know who these people were. Please name them.

There was a general move towards revolt of their roman leaders amongst the Jews. In fact, it has been theorized that the followers of Jesus during His life thought that his goal was to overthrow the roman government.

*************
M*W: This is exactly why the Romans invented christianity. They wrote it as propaganda against the Jews. Interestingly, the gospel of Mark turned up just about the time of the Jewish Revolt (70 AD). My guess is that Mark may have been written by Josephus who was a high-ranking soldier in that revolt.

You do know that the Pauline Epistles were written before the gospels. This laid the ground work for the gospels, and no "Paul" existed or wrote them. This fictional character was allegedly in Rome when he wrote the epistles, so they must have been written by a Roman who knew the goings on around Rome but who also was well-traveled knowledgeable.

My point is that showing that a man existed whom we can attribute these bare minimum traits to would not be a hard thing at all.

*************
M*W: Can you provide documented evidence from noted scholars? How hard could this be?

If he is really Jesus, then he is really God, not merely a historical man. The real argument is over the supernatural. No matter how much "imperical evidence" points toward a supernatural event, whatever theory will explain the event in natural terms, however improbable, will seem more probable to those who rule out the option of the supernatural. I'm saying that it's futile to discuss the probability of a man who was God, if you completely rule it out before the discussion.

*************
M*W: First, you're making an illogical assumption that Jesus existed therefore there has to be a god therefore Jesus existed and is god. Don't you see the circular logic?

Jesus was a metaphor for the sun. Just like in Revelations, I think, it refers to "a woman clothed in the sun." That would be about the month of September which is conveniently celebrated as Jesus's mother's "birthday."

This same "woman," the Constellation Virgo, also has arms that extend into the Constellation Libra and appears that she is holding scales.

In another post, her tits were mentioned. Looking skyward to the Constellation Virgo there are stars located where each of her "paps" would be.

Another interesting point is that the Constellation Virgo was the forerunner of the goddesses of many cultures.

How can any supernatural deity really exist? They are fictional characters that are often named so from the stars or bodies in the heavens.

Your statement on "empirical evidence" does not point to logic. In fact, your whole statement was gibberish. Rephrase it.

Some people really believe in Leprechans. Others believe in Ewoks. Some believe that mythological characters are real... as in "believing makes it so."

I don't believe any of us here would dispute the fact that Jesus was god. We're just waiting for someone like you to prove it.

 

[Noone special]

M*W: There have been no Roman records of his crucifixion.

Ann. of Tacitus 15.44: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..."

M*W: I'd like to know who these people were. Please name them.

First Jospehus says this general comment: "Another body of wicked men also sprung up, cleaner in their hands, but more wicked in their intentions, who destroyed the peace of the city no less than did these murderers (the Sicarii). For they were deceivers and deluders of the people, and, under pretense of divine illumination, were for innovations and changes, and prevailed on the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them in the wilderness, pretending that God would there show them signs of liberty"

Athronges (Josephus' Jewish Antiquities 17.278-284)
Theudas (though not explicitly claimed as messiah, claimed as great prophet and led an revolt against roman control) (Jospehus' Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98)
Then an "egyptian" whom Felix killed his followers in 55-60
Menahem Ben Judah led the "Zealots" and fought Agripus II
Finally Josephus mentions a "prophet" led followers into the desert who were killed by the troops of Festus

M*W: This is exactly why the Romans invented christianity.

That's quite an assertive claim, may you provide some evidence as has been required of me? It's actually just a hypothesis. The hypothesis is that the Flavians created a more passive messiah in order to make a following that would not create an uprising? Forgive me if I am mistaken.

To me this seems like quite a brilliant undertaking, seeing as there was already a militaristic messianic movement in play. There was a Jewish-Roman war going on. How exactly did the Flavians convince the jews that the gospels were authentic? Couldn't the people of the time easily have discerned if this were a hoax created by romans?

Besides that, why would the romans propagate a religion that would exclude the worship of caesar?

M*W: First, you're making an illogical assumption that Jesus existed therefore there has to be a god therefore Jesus existed and is god. Don't you see the circular logic?

Im sorry but you might not be understanding the groove of my jig. I didn't really say that at all. I was saying that proving that there was a man named Jesus who led an uprising would be proving nothing at all. I was saying that if the real Jesus were to be proven from a christian perspective, he would have to be proven to be God. If he is not proven to be God, then hes not really the Jesus we claim, in fact there would be no Jesus.

But in fact, my illogical assumption (and Im a firm believer that illogical assumptions are neccesary, just choose your flavor) that Jesus existed, and that the historical evidence is credible, is no less illogical than your extreme criticism of the historical evidence, and in fact I would say your preconcieved assumption that Jesus never existed.

As I was saying earlier, it is impossible to prove to someone anything which they rule out a priori. If there is a conspiricy theory, no matter how far fetched, it will appear far more tempting to someone than accepting that Jesus is God, because after all, Jesus can't be God right? (sarcasm, forgive me)

 

[John99]

M*W, what you said about the Romans makes no sense. It is not even consistent with what you said earlier.

 

[John99]

For example if jesus was finaly a woman born in South Africa taken as slave for the Roman emperor, then we cannot say that Jesus existed as Jesus (the one we believe now)

Do you mean by name?

 

[audible]

Ann. of Tacitus 15.44: ------------------- it will appear far more tempting to someone than accepting that Jesus is God, because after all, Jesus can't be God right? (sarcasm, forgive me)

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

Yes,
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.
Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php
thanks Iasion.



The crucifixion

The crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus is probably the single most important event in the xian religion. The crucifix itself, an instrument of torture and death, is the most common symbol associated with xians. It is found in their churches, in their houses and often hanging around their necks.

The crucifixion continues here

 

[Noone special]

I thought it would be most benefitial to review the validity of the Tacitus evidence.

* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.

This could easily be acounted for as a minor scribal error. The earliest manuscripts we have are from the 11th century.

* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)

According to the Tacitean scholars, whose opinion I reference, Tacitus was probably writing to a smaller group, of friends perhaps. There is only one scholar I saw who questioned that this quotation was an interpolation, compared to 9 Tacitean scholars who thought it was genuine. The passae appears in every copy of the Annals that we have. It's written in "Perfect Tacitean style."

* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

Actually Tacitus writes in a decisively negative tone toward christianity. First this shows that it is highly unlikely that a christian would write it. Second this gives a reason why no church father would have willingly quoted it. And since Tacitus probably wrote to a limited audience of his peers, his work could have not gotten into the church fathers hands at an early date.

And the link you gave for Tacitus, is just his works posted online.

This sure is a tedious discussion to say the least. Everything must be questioned!

 

[audible]

This could easily be acounted for as a minor scribal error. The earliest manuscripts we have are from the 11th century.

Maybe so, but doubtful.

According to the Tacitean scholars, whose opinion I reference,

where are the links.

Tacitus was probably writing to a smaller group, of friends perhaps.

Was he! Five or five thousand is quite irrelevant, the fact that it errs is paramount.

There is only one scholar I saw who questioned that this quotation was an interpolation, compared to 9 Tacitean scholars who thought it was genuine.

and they are? the links to them. Please.

The passage appears in every copy of the Annals that we have. It's written in "Perfect Tacitean style."

Is it, and what style is that care to explain.
"Even though the passage is authentic to Tacitus, it might be argued that Tacitus received his information about the origin of the Christian name from Christians themselves. This could be argued on six grounds: (1) Tacitus does not identify his source explicitly. (2) Tacitus anachronistically identifies Pilate as a procurator, when the proper title would have been prefect. (3) Tacitus refers to the founder of the name as 'Christus', while written records would presumably have used the name Jesus. (4) As meticulous as the Romans were, crucifixion records hardly went back nearly a century in time (the Annals being written c. 115 CE). (5) There is insufficient motive for Tacitus to research about this Christus in any detail, as the reference appears in Tacitus merely as an explanation of the origin of the name Christian, which in turn is being described only as an example of Nero's cruelty. (6) Finally, there would be no reason for Tacitus not to take the basic Christian story at face value, especially since the idea that they were of recent origin would correctly classify Christianity as a superstition." From Here

Actually Tacitus writes in a decisively negative tone toward christianity. First this shows that it is highly unlikely that a christian would write it. Second this gives a reason why no church father would have willingly quoted it. And since Tacitus probably wrote to a limited audience of his peers, his work could have not gotten into the church fathers hands at an early date.

how he write is irrelevant as to what he writes, or what is actually written by him.

And the link you gave for Tacitus, is just his works posted online.

try this one it has links within links etc etc... http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

This sure is a tedious discussion to say the least. Everything must be questioned!

agreed Especially if your a Christian, the truth is not something they really want to know, is it.

 

[Noone special]

First, the reason I said that he probably wrote to a small group is to explain the relaxed language he uses.

Secondly, I almost have enough posts to be able to post links

And here is an argument I have read on the authenticity:
"Furthermore, there are good reasons for accepting the authenticity of this passage: the anti-Christian tone of the passage, the scapegoat motif, the Latin style, and the integration of the passage with the story." --Jeffery Jay Lowder

Forgive me for not going into grave detail about each scholar, and listing every link. Perhaps I am not as intellegent, capable, or dedicated as you would wish.

 

[John99]

audible, some things you are asking can only be known at time of death. I would have just as soon avoided a theological discussion on divinity because we need to be able, for our own comfort, to accept all possibilities ATOD. We just dont know what is going to happen, none of them can be right and all of them can be right.

 

[John99]

You have to realize that what is nkown to us is considered possible, by the same token what is unknown may also be possible. We can ask the question: Is it impossible because it is unknown? The unknown is what appears to be the root of our struggles through life, collectively.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: To audible and Noone special: Wow! I am impressed with your knowledge! Both of you have posted information that I have not read here before. That is not to say that someone else (Iasion comes to mind) has posted similar studies, and I do hope you keep posting such information as you have herein.

I am going to do further reading on the subject both of you presented, and then I'll be back.

Thank you so much, and keep up the great work!

~ M*W

 

[John99]

What about my posts?

 

[Simon Anders]

I would just like to say that the thread is mistitled.
The verb should be 'was'.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I would just like to say that the thread is mistitled.
The verb should be 'was'.

M*W: Thank you, you are correct.

 

[Noone special]

Indeed M*W conversing with you has provoked me to reevaluate sources and do much more research, so I think this has been benefitial. Not to mention entertaining.

 

[John99]

Ronin: Right, it is different her even if probably what we know of Jesus (that he heal a blind man and that he came back to life) is not describing him completely , it is in fact probable that the authors added extra events (probably like Mr Hide)
in fact in the case of Mr Hide, the author do not want us to believe that he existed. (I think so, I did not read that neither)

I dont tell Hindu's what to believe either.

 

[John99]

I think my point has been proven. There was never a human entity, in history, who was\is believed to be real BUT was proven to be fictional (fake).

This hurdle cannot be overcome.

 

[Noone special]

Honestly John, I think that's a ridiculous argument.

1. It's begging the question. Your assuming that Jesus has not been proven to be mythical, then your using this as proof that he is not mythical.
2. Your brushing off all evidence and conjecture that everyone has posed to you by simply saying "those are bad examples" and not explaining yourself better.
3. You haven't once citing any kind of sources or rellied on any kind of information outside of your own brain.

Don't take this as an attack, I'm just trying to help you out.
Maybe you should explore different avenues of argument, its like excercising except its for your brain.