Existence of the "historical Jesus" increasingly questioned by scholars

[Texashiker]

He was supposedly born four years after Jesus' headed for the clouds. He would have had to grow up and all that. With no written records to chronicle the life of Jesus that a generation of separation from the events.

4 years does not make a generation.

You realize the US government is still paying civil war benefits?

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303603904579493830954152394

We can pay benefits 149 years after the fact, but for some reason 4 years is a big deal?

The truth is Josephus was old enough to talk with people who witnessed the crucifixion and knew Jesus.

 

[bradly1101]

Jesus was a character in a morality play.

 

[Exophase]

The truth is Josephus was old enough to talk with people who witnessed the crucifixion and knew Jesus.

That doesn't mean he did, and in fact nowhere does he even claim that he has. Josephus wrote briefly about Jesus in "Antiquity of the Jews" as a man in his late 50s. At this point there would have been few people alive who were contemporaries of Jesus as adults, and they would have been difficult to find.

For someone whom you claim had real witnesses at his disposal his writings of Jesus were pretty vague. What it does seem to make clear is that Christianity was a tangible thing by the end of the first century and that it followed a basic tenant of belief in Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection. I guess that seems like a smoking gun to you that the gospels were accurate.

Consider the context here, where Josephus's anthology of Jewish history was trying to draw positive attention to the Jewish people. That's not exactly an unbiased source. And given the the rest of the material was from thousands to hundreds of years before him that obviously couldn't have been investigated by contemporaries I don't see why you'd assume that the Jesus reference was.

 

[Abwx]

That .....
was.

You should google Bruno Bauer, christianity was created under the roman empire in Rome, its main contributor is Philo of Alexandria and its corpus christi was extracted from Seneca the Younger writings.

 

[shira]

In the op you mentioned that you were of the opinion that the Jesus of Christianity did exist, I'm not being a prick I promise but I wonder if people who do believe in his existence have thought of what that actually would mean. This is a quote from CS Lewis' book Mere Christianity that I've always found very pointed:

In his famous book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis makes this statement, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.

I think it's completely consistent to believe that there was a historical Jesus, but that he didn't say or do many, most, or any of the things ascribed to him. That has been my opinion for most of my life.

 

[shira]

I never said Josephus was a first hand account.

Learn to read.

Then you're admitting that what Josephus wrote has no weight, UNLESS he based his writings on contemporary, eyewitness accounts. If so, where are those contemporary, eyewitness accounts?

 

[shira]

We are not using science here. Science means you can replicate a theory.

We are using a legal system of calling witnesses.

We have witnesses, reliable witnesses, who said Jesus existed.

Tell us who those witnesses are.

You do understand, don't you, that a "witness" means someone who SAW Jesus do things or who heard him speak or who saw the trial or the crucifixion? Someone who merely repeats what they believe to be true, or what they heard said (but cannot connect to a known, reliable witness) is not acceptable as "evidence."

 

[HumblePie]

Thank you.





How is 4 years a long time?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Non-believers are proud to proclaim the United States was not founded on Christian beliefs.

What did the founding fathers continue? Slavery for one thing.

Take your pick:

Atheist who do not value human life, and have no compassion or charity.

Or the teachings of Christ with love, compassion and charity.

Oh for fuck sake. The founding fathers had a few christians and OTHER religious followings. None of them were atheists, although a few could maybe put close to that category.

The majority of them were all Deists. Deists are basically believers in an ultimate power that originally shaped or created the universe and the laws upon which the universe runs its course. That that original creator may or may not still be around, but whether it is still still there or not, it does not interfere with the universe since its inception.

As for why slavery continued after the founding of the country, that is a massive political mess that had zero to do with religion. Many of the founding fathers were against slavery and wanted to end it with the founding of the Constitution. They didn't thought because they knew that to create that law at that time was to sow a civil war which would have happened on the coattails of the the war they just went through. This is because the majority of the populace at the time in the new America, was slave owning Christians that like owning slaves.

 

[soulcougher73]

Thank you.





How is 4 years a long time?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Non-believers are proud to proclaim the United States was not founded on Christian beliefs.

What did the founding fathers continue? Slavery for one thing.

Take your pick:

Atheist who do not value human life, and have no compassion or charity.

Or the teachings of Christ with love, compassion and charity.

Someone is delusional if that is what you think.

 

[Moonbeam]

When Nasrudin was a boy he lived in a Mosque founded by his Mulla father, but when he begin to reach the age of manhood he became doubtful of his religion and decided to broaden his understanding through travel. So he took his favorite donkey and set out to see the world. So he traveled this way for years and years. One day, on a frequently used pass high in the mountains, as is the way of things, his donkey died. Nasrudin buried him and sat by his grave disconsolate with grief, crying and crying. Travelers that passed begin to leave him food and put flowers on the grave. Eventually, word spread of the disciple in the mountains who mourned a saint so great his grief was inconsolable, and a magnificent Mosque was built with the money travelers left as tribute. And thus it was that the son of Mulla Nasrudin became a Mulla himself, and the fame of his Mosque reached his fathers ears, who decided to travel to see it. When he arrived and saw that it was his own son who was the Mulla, he couldn't believe his eyes, and asked all about how it had happened. When the explanation was given the father stood dumbfounded and replied, my son, the same thing happened to me.

Now when I first heard this story I wondered, donkey that I am, if the implication is that religion is the worship of donkeys, but with time and experiences it occurs to me that what is in the tomb doesn't matter. I turn my attention more these days to what magical property of the human mind it is that manages always to see God in a rock, if that is what's available. It seems to me a better place to put ones attention than whether this or that donkey ever existed.

 

[Texashiker]

Then you're admitting that what Josephus wrote has no weight, UNLESS he based his writings on contemporary, eyewitness accounts. If so, where are those contemporary, eyewitness accounts?

Have you read what Josephus wrote?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Have you read what Josephus wrote?

Could you post or link to some of the parts you find convincing? If jesus did exist, he wouldn't have been alive at the same time.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I don't disagree with you here necessarily, but Roman Emperors were gods themselves, so performing miracles would have been "meh" anyway.

Also, a group torn by dogs and persecuted, likely, people would have feared to side with Jesus, possibly being threatened themselves.

Just saying its hard to get onboard with a new religion under the rule of an intolerant and violent one.

I completely disagree with you here. If that was the case, than what jesus did wouldn't have stood our or especially resonated with anyone. No Roman emperor was able to perform miracles like jesus was said to be able to do. I also believe that the people of Rome would have been quite aware that their emperors were human and replaceable with other humans. Humans who were not revered as gods. Did someone suddenly become god when they replaced an emperor that was assassinated? They may have been treated as 'god-like', but I have no doubt that anyone living in Rome at that time would be well aware of their rulers human mortality.

 

[Texashiker]

Could you post or link to some of the parts you find convincing? If jesus did exist, he wouldn't have been alive at the same time.

There is no question whether or not Jesus existed.

The only question is why do you question a man who only taught love, peace, charity and forgiveness.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.

He was [the] Christ.

And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,[9] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;[10] as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.

And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Josephus was born 4 years after the crucifixion of Christ. He would have had direct access to first hand witnesses.

Before you dismiss Josephus, did you live when your great great grandparents were alive?

Did your mom and dad tell you about their grandparents? Do you believe your parents?

Why would someone dismiss Josephus, but accept what their parents and grandparents tell them about their family history?

My mom and my grandfather told me about a store my great great grandparents used to have. My mom never saw the store, as it was moved before she was born. I never saw the store as it was demolished before I was born.

I accept that there was a store because my grandfather and other witnesses told me there was a store.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Non-believers are proud to proclaim the United States was not founded on Christian beliefs.

What did the founding fathers continue? Slavery for one thing.

Take your pick:

Atheist who do not value human life, and have no compassion or charity.

Or the teachings of Christ with love, compassion and charity.

Actually, it is interesting you bring this up. Slavery is clearly sanctioned in the bible. There is no gray area here, slavery is a-ok with the christian god. In the new testament jesus had ample opportunity to speak against slavery, but never did, and in fact seemed to support it to some degree. I wonder how many years or decades slavery might have lingered on in this country because slave owners felt a true moral right given to them by god.

I am not saying christianity is responsible for slavery in this country. I think there are much bigger economic reasons. But, it certainly could have contributed to the continuation of slavery. I'd have trouble 'owning' someone, keeping their freedom. But, if I felt it was my divine right given to me by god...

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Weird rules:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Punishment rules:
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

New testament:
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

 

[Texashiker]

Actually, it is interesting you bring this up. Slavery is clearly sanctioned in the bible. There is no gray area here, slavery is a-ok with the christian god.

You are getting the old testament and the new testament confused.

Jesus never said it was ok to own slaves.

 

[Retro Rob]

I completely disagree with you here. If that was the case, than what jesus did wouldn't have stood our or especially resonated with anyone.

The Imperial Cult of Rome lead to that, but all that notwithstanding, they had their own gods, and Christians only had one at the time. They didn't beleive in one, universal, almighty God like Chrisitans did/currently do.

There was no reason for them to believe anything said about Christ, no more than there is reason for Christians to believe anything miraculous attributed to Muhammed.

No Roman emperor was able to perform miracles like jesus was said to be able to do.

So what? They still had their own religion, though. And people still believe in miraculous "faith healings" today...back then, as many say, they would have taken hearsay about Roman Emperors as truth.

I also believe that the people of Rome would have been quite aware that their emperors were human and replaceable with other humans. Humans who were not revered as gods.

Again, their office was on of Divine approval, so it really didn't matter if the Emperor was a moral man...he had the backing of the gods.

 

[SlowSpyder]

There is no question whether or not Jesus existed.

The only question is why do you question a man who only taught love, peace, charity and forgiveness.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3



Josephus was born 4 years after the crucifixion of Christ. He would have had direct access to first hand witnesses.

Before you dismiss Josephus, did you live when your great great grandparents were alive?

Did your mom and dad tell you about their grandparents? Do you believe your parents?

Why would someone dismiss Josephus, but accept what their parents and grandparents tell them about their family history?

My mom and my grandfather told me about a store my great great grandparents used to have. My mom never saw the store, as it was moved before she was born. I never saw the store as it was demolished before I was born.

I accept that there was a store because my grandfather and other witnesses told me there was a store.

My parents also told me a tooth fairy put a few quarters or a dollar under my pillow when I lost a tooth when I was that age. When I got older my dad also told me he heard of a stripper in Mexico that can take a roll of quarters and drop them out of her sniz one at a time. Does that mean it is true?

Why do you turn your back on a miracle worker that only taught love, peace, charity and forgiveness?

What makes the nearly 2000 year old second hand account of jesus more reliable than something like I posted right above? (keep in mind the bible is full of b.s. we know either didn't happen or you have to really stretch reality to fit around it's stories, not the other way around like real life)

Are you sure jesus was god's son? Why is this fish telling us to study the torah? (note, that story is 10 years old, still waiting for the end...)

 

[fskimospy]

You are getting the old testament and the new testament confused.

Jesus never said it was ok to own slaves.

Jesus also never condemned homosexuality.

The New Testament contains numerous implicit endorsements of slavery, such as telling slaves to be obedient to their masters, etc.

I'm sorry your god likes slavery so much, considering how much you've complained about SCOTUS endorsing it in other threads. I guess SCOTUS was in good company, huh? haha.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The Imperial Cult of Rome lead to that, but all that notwithstanding, they had their own gods, and Christians only had one at the time. They didn't beleive in one, universal, almighty God like Chrisitans did/currently do.

There was no reason for them to believe anything said about Christ, no more than there is reason for Christians to believe anything miraculous attributed to Muhammed.

So what? They still had their own religion, though. And people still believe in miraculous "faith healings" today...back then, as many say, they would have taken hearsay about Roman Emperors as truth.

Again, their office was on of Divine approval, so it really didn't matter if the Emperor was a moral man...he had the backing of the gods.

This is what you said:

I don't disagree with you here necessarily, but Roman Emperors were gods themselves, so performing miracles would have been "meh" anyway.

The emperors may have had the backing of the gods, they may have even been revered as gods in some ways. But they never returned someone to the living who was dead. They never magically turned water to wine. This is something that would have been a magnificent feat had it happened.

Other than the bible, which is self-serving, there are no first hand accounts of such things happening. There are no accounts of the exodus. There is no evidence of a global flood. We know the universe is older than our planet. We know the world is older than the bible would have you believe. Dinosaurs walked the planet long before humanity.

To me it would get tiring always trying to warp reality to fit stories from the bible. I wonder what is more likely, a thousands of years old book written before we knew anything about the universe is wrong about our origins and the planet's history and is just another religious text, much like every other one written that we both ignore from every other single religion.

Or, the bible is correct and we're all descended from a man and a woman made from that man's rib; and condemned from birth because a talking snake convinced that woman to eat a magical fruit from a tree that was off limits.

Pretty sure I know the answer. 🙂

 

[SlowSpyder]

You are getting the old testament and the new testament confused.

Jesus never said it was ok to own slaves.

He never condemned it, not once, and told slaves to obey their masters.

I was just reading Luke 12 (one of the parts where jesus tells slaves to behave for their masters) and it dawned on me... there sure are a lot of quotes of jesus. Considering the time between his life and when that was written, I find it odd that there would be so many exact quotes of the man. How'd they keep those quotes?

 

[Retro Rob]

The emperors may have had the backing of the gods, they may have even been revered as gods in some ways. But they never returned someone to the living who was dead. They never magically turned water to wine. This is something that would have been a magnificent feat had it happened.

Well, you're welcome to believe whatever you wish. I fully support that.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is what you said:

Wait a sec...do you believe in faith healings?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Wait a sec...do you believe in faith healings?

From what I've seen, no.

 

[Retro Rob]

From what I've seen, no.

So what makes you think that Jesus rasing the dead was any more credible in that society than faith-healings are in ours?

The point I'm trying to convey here is that too many of you are trying to inject what YOU would have done had you been under Roman rule 2000 something years ago during the rise of a small, Jewish sect porporting that their founder can perfrom miracles.

You would have done what you do today when people make miraculous claims...write them off as nonsense.

This generation betrays itself even more -- we try to explain away "non-scientific" claims using natural explantions, or deny them as exaggerated, or deny them altogether.

How much more so would contempoaries of Jesus who were non-Christian, do the exact same thing while convicing others to do that as well?

NOTE: I am not saying this is what happened because I do not know this to be true, but I'm just making a case as to other possiblities within the context of the time he lived.