Historical Jesus

I recently became interested in the subject of whether or not Jesus of Nathareth actually existed as is generally assumed.

Before anyone accuses me of being some kind of conspiracy theorist, I would like to say I am just open to different possibilities and I am not trying to present this as fact.

I know that such a concept could be seen as automatically offensive to Christians but please believe that is not my intention.

Some of my reasons for now believing there is a fair possibility he may not have existed can be found here: http://www.debate.org...

I'm not just fishing for votes here, I'm already well behind and there's not long left, plus I expect posting this will, if anything, lead to more votes for IT rather than myself especially as one of my rounds was incomplete due to extenuating circumstances.

What I would really like is some opinions from NON Christian members who are interested enough to read this lengthy debate or maybe some of the sources I cited and weigh up the evidence (or lack of it) from either side.

Thanks.

There is admittedly no solid proof he existed. But there is also, naturally, no solif proof he did not exits (non-existance can't be proven, after all).

So we have to look into likelyhoods. And the question then becomes "who made him up"? And this has already been discussed here, in a discussion about the writings of Josephus.

I will quote myself:

Well, we know for a fact that there was Christians in Rome, and enough of them to be able to lobby to be recognized as a separate religion from Judaism, by AD96. There are also various references to the existence of Christians in Rome during Nero's reign. Famously Nero apparently tried to blame the fire in Rome on Christians. That makes sense as they would have been a new arrival in Rome, and it's easy to blame a bunch of fanatics.

Also, the later the supposed invention of Christ is the more things you need to explain. Like how come there were early Christian groups in Greece and Jerusalem, if the religion was invented in Rome?

Nah, the sect must have started in Judea. The question then comes who started it. And it seems your proposition is that Jesus and the whole sect was completely invented by Paul, and even the other Apostles were his inventions and didn't exist. That makes no sense, as I have explained multiple times.

First of all, Paul clearly is not a leader of this group he supposedly invented. In fact, there are twelve leaders, the Twelve apostles, who decide stuff. He is not one of them. His story involves several conflicts with these guys, and there is no reason for him to invent such a conflict, unless the story end in him being victorious, which it does not. They reach a compromise.

The only reasonable explanation for this is that he did *not* invent these other people. The Christian sect did exist already when he joined them. So he didn't make up Jesus, and he didn't make up the disciples. He joined a sect that already existed and already talked about Jesus.

Then the question is if the Apostles made up Jesus. Did the leader of this sect (probably James) make up Jesus? Well, that would be a bit tricky, because he apparently makes up not only Jesus but that the other apostles followed him for years. How do you do that?

"I know this guy called Jesus and he died and got resurrected!"
"Wow, cool!"
"And you and me were disciples before he got crucified!"
"I was!? Jesus Christ, I had no idea! I must have completely forgotten five years of my life!"

Nope, that doesn't work. James can't have made Jesus up. So that leaves only the possibility that all the disciples and followers of Jesus made Jesus up together, with the one and only purpose of tricking Paul. Aaaand, no. Sorry. It's too stupid.

That leaves only one possibility: That Jesus existed, was a religious leader and was crucified. That is by far the most likely possibility.

There is also exactly nothing that contradicts that. Yes, admittedly not much independent evidence supports it's either, but it is the conclusion you must make purely from the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Yeshua bar Yusuf was most likely a 1st century religious leader of a dogmatic Jewish nazarite sect who argued for stringent adherence to the mosaic laws. Such a sect would have had most of the opinions Jesus had, they would have been appalled at the money changers in the Temple, they would have taken ritual baths, they would have had a leadership of 13 men, one leader and 12 others, etc. Very much of the stories surrounding Jesus fits. The only thing that does not "fit" what we know are the miracles and the resurrection, as we in todays scientific society knows these are impossible. Most of the rest of the stuff works in such a context.

I prefer Future Jesus.

At 11/5/2009 7:08:22 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
I prefer Future Jesus.

I like pink Jesus, third to the right.

At 11/5/2009 7:08:22 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
I prefer Future Jesus.

I prefer Raptor Jesus.

Or Cyborg Pirate Ninja Jesus.

http://s5.photobucket.com...

Anyways, onto the subject at hand.

Regebro said quite alot, which is mostly accurate. But let me just add.

Just because Jesus Existed and was crucified, does not mean he was resurrected, walked on water, turned water to wine, and raised the dead. Infact, all the evidence seem to point to the fact that Jesus was a normal man, who walked around preaching peace like a rabbi preacher of sorts. There is little to no doubt that a person named Jesus existed. There is much doubt to the point of impossibilities that Jesus of the bible did not. You were tricked by the debate term "Jesus of History". History has little to say about Jesus, and since it is history, the Jesus of History probably did exist. But the Jesus of the bible certainly did not.

Let me also note that when Tacitus wrote on Nero blaming the great fire to Christians, there is an interesting discrepancy here. The original word used was "Chrestianos", whereas someone later came and changed the word by erasing the "e" and replacing it with a "i", thus changing the meaning of the word as well. As the word stands, "Chrestianos" means the useful, or the good. In other words, Tacitus might just be saying that Nero blamed a useful scapegoat, as Nero himself was the perpetrator of the fire, which is a popular theory amongst a few historians.

At 11/5/2009 12:03:32 PM, tkubok wrote:
Let me also note that when Tacitus wrote on Nero blaming the great fire to Christians, there is an interesting discrepancy here. The original word used was "Chrestianos", whereas someone later came and changed the word by erasing the "e" and replacing it with a "i", thus changing the meaning of the word as well. As the word stands, "Chrestianos" means the useful, or the good. In other words, Tacitus might just be saying that Nero blamed a useful scapegoat, as Nero himself was the perpetrator of the fire, which is a popular theory amongst a few historians.

1. Spelling was optional in all texts up to the 18th century. It's not possible to make any conclusion from such a small difference. Jesus Chrestos (The Good) was a common name for Jesus in early Christianity, and calling christians chrestians is not unheard of in early texts, afaik.

2. Tacitus texts are specific about that it is a group, that was generally disliked that is blamed and punished.

What people are ignoring is the fact there were multipel messiahs at the time milking the minds of Jewish people looking for a messiah.

For example, Appolonius of Tyana: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Apparently a contemporary of Jesus, he claims a similar story to himhttp://www.livius.org....

Furthermore here's a long list of known Messiah claimant http://en.wikipedia.org...

There were probably many more at the time that were unrecorded.

At 11/5/2009 3:04:51 PM, regebro wrote:
1. Spelling was optional in all texts up to the 18th century. It's not possible to make any conclusion from such a small difference. Jesus Chrestos (The Good) was a common name for Jesus in early Christianity, and calling christians chrestians is not unheard of in early texts, afaik.

2. Tacitus texts are specific about that it is a group, that was generally disliked that is blamed and punished.

1. the reason why this is significant is not because of the spelling discrepancy, but because someone decided that it was important enough to change the meaning. Which leads to two conclusions. Either Tacitus was having second thoughts about how to spell Chrestianos, which is unlikely, or someone believed that this could be detrminental to the christian doctrine and chose to change it.

2. I never said that the group did not exist.

Thanks for the responses guys.

There is indeed no solid evidence on either side but to ask "who made him up" misses the point somewhat.

The hypotheses is that the earliest Christian writings, the epistles of Paul (the non-pseudoepigrapha) were describing a symbolic Christ and a heavenly crucifixion, also that the first gospel (Mark) was written as allegorical fiction.

Exactly when this story might have begun to be portrayed as a real life event is unclear but it is clear that vastly different interpretations of Christ, including the idea that he was a spirit not a man continued to exist even when the Catholic Church were specifying the New Testament canon and establishing the doctrine of the trinity.

The 12 apostles or disciples make most sense as an allegory of the 12 tribes of Israel. Paul doesn't refer to "the twelve" and calls himself an apostle.

Tkubok, I agree with everything you said except the part about: "There is little to no doubt that a person named Jesus existed."

There is indeed doubt. It is held and expressed by many.

For more arguments for and against check out the debate.

Thanks.

At 11/5/2009 4:20:11 PM, feverish wrote:
Thanks for the responses guys.

There is indeed no solid evidence on either side but to ask "who made him up" misses the point somewhat.

The hypotheses is that the earliest Christian writings, the epistles of Paul (the non-pseudoepigrapha) were describing a symbolic Christ and a heavenly crucifixion, also that the first gospel (Mark) was written as allegorical fiction.

Exactly when this story might have begun to be portrayed as a real life event is unclear but it is clear that vastly different interpretations of Christ, including the idea that he was a spirit not a man continued to exist even when the Catholic Church were specifying the New Testament canon and establishing the doctrine of the trinity.

The 12 apostles or disciples make most sense as an allegory of the 12 tribes of Israel. Paul doesn't refer to "the twelve" and calls himself an apostle.

Tkubok, I agree with everything you said except the part about: "There is little to no doubt that a person named Jesus existed."

There is indeed doubt. It is held and expressed by many.

For more arguments for and against check out the debate.

Thanks.

Im a man of peace, so i have no problem when a christian claims that clearly a Jesus must have existed throughout history. My only objection is to what he did, and who he claimed to be, and not that he existed.

This is the problem with Jesus. With most other characters, the words, the claims they make fall and stand on their own. It doesnt matter whether or not Caesar was the one who said such and such, if its wrong, its wrong, and if its right, its right. But with Jesus, or any other holy figure, the words are tied to the person in question. It holds so much water because it came from Jesus. If Jesus was a simple man and not the son of God/God himself, his words are pretty much useless. Therefore, what is important isnt that Jesus existed, but that he was who he claimed to be.

And thats why i take the position that i have no problem agreeing that a Jesus could and may have existed. But what he did is certainly not up for debate.