The historical Jesus

[Grays Harbor]

I have faith that the moon is made of cheese. Does this make it so?

But is it Blue Cheese, Muenster, Cheddar, Parmesan or Emmenthaler? There is room for much debate there.

[Buffett and Colbert]

It is evidence. That is plain and simple fact. My faith in Jesus is evidence that He existed. My faith alone is not very good evidence, of course, but it is indeed evidence, however tenuous.

No it isn't. I have faith that the moon is made of cheese. Does this make it so?

You misunderstood. You're belief certainly is evidence for the moon being cheesy, though it is not a very convincing evidence, just as my faith should not be very convincing on it's own, but it is, however slight, some evidence.

If this "evidencee" is so minute, why post it?

[Hairless Kitten II]

We all know Jesus, but is he real, did he had a life? Well, IMHO, I doubt.

There's no good evidence. Most of it is written almost 100 years later after he had his so-called life. In that time there were several Jesus figures as well. Including ones that had 'magic' power, as turning water into wine, multiplying bread and so on.

So what do you think? Is there a historical Jesus or not?

I think you are trolling for argument #946 between those who believe in jesus and those who don't for no other purpose than to stir things up for no good reason and to give atheists another opportunity to act smug and superior and christians to act self-riteous and superior.

Thats what I think.

It's also trolling to say that Obama is a bad or good president. Everything is trolling, isn't?

It would be trolling if I call all Jesus believers fucking retards. I didn't do that and to make things clear, I don't think they are retards.

If you can't stand the heat, stay away from the kitchen.

[Buffett and Colbert]

We all know Jesus, but is he real, did he had a life? Well, IMHO, I doubt.

There's no good evidence. Most of it is written almost 100 years later after he had his so-called life. In that time there were several Jesus figures as well. Including ones that had 'magic' power, as turning water into wine, multiplying bread and so on.

So what do you think? Is there a historical Jesus or not?

I think you are trolling for argument #946 between those who believe in jesus and those who don't for no other purpose than to stir things up for no good reason and to give atheists another opportunity to act smug and superior and christians to act self-riteous and superior.

Thats what I think.

It's also trolling to say that Obama is a bad or good president. Everything is trolling, isn't?

It would be trolling if I call all Jesus believers fucking retards. I didn't do that and to make thinkgs clear, I don't think they are retards.

If you can't stand the heat, stay away from the kitchen.

It's more of the fact that we've already had numerous threads about the subject and all seem to be coming from you.

It would be trolling if I call all Jesus believers fucking retards.

It would indeed.

[Seculartopia]

We know he was a person. Thats about it. To some, his existence proves the bible's stories, but what if the stories were way exaggerated and he never did some of the things the bible says?
Me personally, i think he was just a mortal man who wanted to lead.

[Buffett and Colbert]

We know he was a person. Thats about it. To some, his existence proves the bible's stories, but what if the stories were way exaggerated and he never did some of the things the bible says?Me personally, i think he was just a mortal man who wanted to lead.

[Grays Harbor]

We all know Jesus, but is he real, did he had a life? Well, IMHO, I doubt.

There's no good evidence. Most of it is written almost 100 years later after he had his so-called life. In that time there were several Jesus figures as well. Including ones that had 'magic' power, as turning water into wine, multiplying bread and so on.

So what do you think? Is there a historical Jesus or not?

I think you are trolling for argument #946 between those who believe in jesus and those who don't for no other purpose than to stir things up for no good reason and to give atheists another opportunity to act smug and superior and christians to act self-riteous and superior.

Thats what I think.

It's also trolling to say that Obama is a bad or good president. Everything is trolling, isn't?

It would be trolling if I call all Jesus believers fucking retards. I didn't do that and to make thinkgs clear, I don't think they are retards.

If you can't stand the heat, stay away from the kitchen.

Or I can continue to post my opinion as I wish as long as I follow the rules and do not flame, flamebait or Troll. I am sorry if you do not like it that not everybody agrees with you or bows to you. You asked for opinions, I gave mine.

There is a difference between "Trolling" (capital T) in the against the rules manner and "trolling" (lower case t) in the I just want to stir things up manner. I believe this is the latter.

For the record, I believe Jesus was a real person. Divine? Not so sure about that, but he had lots of followers who did believe that for better or worse. Belief in a persons divinity does not make it so, but it does not automatically discount it either.

[Gift-of-god]

There was probably several men named Jesus living at the time. But none of them were Jesus of Nazreth, in my opinion.

This is due to the fact that Nazareth didn't exist at the time.

n 1620 the Catholic Church purchased an area in the Nazareth basin measuring approx. 100m x 150m. on the side of the hill known as the Nebi Sa'in. This "Venerated Area" underwent extensive excavation in 1955-65 by the Franciscan priest Belarmino Bagatti, "Director of Christian Archaeology." Fr. Bagatti has been the principal archaeologist at Nazareth. His book, "Excavations in Nazareth" (1969) is still the standard reference for the archaeology of the settlement, and is based on excavations at the Franciscan Venerated Area.

Fr. Bagatti uncovered pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC). Thus, there is no doubt that a substantial settlement existed in the Nazareth basin during those eras. However, lack of archaeological evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BCE, when many towns in the area were destroyed by the Assyrians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#N ... sociations

[Hairless Kitten II]

It is evidence. That is plain and simple fact. My faith in Jesus is evidence that He existed. My faith alone is not very good evidence, of course, but it is indeed evidence, however tenuous.

20 pieces of information written within 70 years (remember, He was crucified ca. 33 AD?) is certainly evidence, and not terrible evidence. Not good enough for you? That's ok, it doesn't need to be, it's not proof, it's no gaurantee of Jesus' existence, but it is evidence.

Faith isn't evidence else Santa Clause, Big Foot or the Yeti would be real too. 20 pieces is almost nothing, compare it with another famous guy of that time: Julius Caesar. About him, there are zillion pieces of evidence. That Jesus is crucified isn't evidence, it's just told. Historians aren't even sure about the date of his supposed crucifixion. Why? They have almost nothing to generate theories.

Maybe next time you ask for evidence to support or refute a claim, you should get a dictionary, and first know what you are asking for.

Maybe you should do that too: ...it's no gaurantee of Jesus' existence...

English is only my third language, what's your excuse?

[Maurepas]

Im more of a Craig fan, personally,

[Sionis Prioratus]

I have my own ideas about that... don't I Buffet?

[Hairless Kitten II]

It's more of the fact that we've already had numerous threads about the subject and all seem to be coming from you.

Fact? Can you prove this? This is my first posting about la Jesus.

[Metaphia]

I don't believe in Jesus as a historical personage. I do believe him, however, to be a genuine metaphorical expression of a metaphysical principle. The fact that he has been compared to other mythological figures is often used to write him off, but I believe these are multiple metaphorical representations of the one same principle. I won't go into details, but people familiar with Jung's writings might have an idea of what I'm getting out.
The book'll be out next year.

[Maurepas]

It's more of the fact that we've already had numerous threads about the subject and all seem to be coming from you.

Fact? Can you prove this? This is my first posting about la Jesus.

Idk, Ive played your postings backward over the Gramophone, and Ive heard some pretty jesusy stuff coming out of them,

[Farnhamia]

It's more of the fact that we've already had numerous threads about the subject and all seem to be coming from you.

Fact? Can you prove this? This is my first posting about la Jesus.

Idk, Ive played your postings backward over the Gramophone, and Ive heard some pretty jesusy stuff coming out of them,

One thread I'm sure says, "Paul is dead." And wouldn't it be "le Jesus"?

[Hairless Kitten II]

One thread I'm sure says, "Paul is dead." And wouldn't it be "le Jesus"?

Nobody knows, there's no evidence for, so it's possible that Jesus was a girl.

[Maurepas]

One thread I'm sure says, "Paul is dead." And wouldn't it be "le Jesus"?

Nobody knows, there's no evidence for, so it's possible that Jesus was a girl.

Would make sense without a male being present,

Would also explain how he/she was able to keep the interests of 12 other men as well.....

[Treznor]

One thread I'm sure says, "Paul is dead." And wouldn't it be "le Jesus"?

Nobody knows, there's no evidence for, so it's possible that Jesus was a girl.

Would make sense without a male being present,

Would also explain how he/she was able to keep the interests of 12 other men as well.....

Unfortunately, given the patriarchical tone of the times, the local authorities wouldn't have hesitated to stone a woman who dared to teach men. So if nothing else, we can sure that misogyny guarantees Jesus was not a woman.

[Maurepas]

Unfortunately, given the patriarchical tone of the times, the local authorities wouldn't have hesitated to stone a woman who dared to teach men. So if nothing else, we can sure that misogyny guarantees Jesus was not a woman.

Unless, as I was trying to imply, he/she was a crossdresser,

[Ifreann]

As I understand it(from other threads about the matter) there is limited evidence of the historical existence of Jesus. Meh, doesn't seem terribly important.

[JLAEST]

They must know best:

Richard Burridge and Graham Gould (2004: References below) state that the questioning of Jesus' existence is not accepted by mainstream critical scholarship.[8] Robert E. Van Voorst has stated that biblical scholars and historians regard the Jesus never existed thesis as "effectively refuted".[9] Graham N. Stanton writes, "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."[10] James Charlesworth writes "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ..."[11] Michael Grant believes that the Christ myth theory fails to satisfy modern critical methodology, and is rejected by all but a few modern scholars.[12]
However, the question of Jesus' historical existence is an ongoing inquiry, with initiatives such as the Jesus Project actively investigating the available evidence. Earl Doherty states "after a survey of the history of research into the historical Jesus, Van Voorst tackles 'the noisy side current' of Jesus mythicism. He notes that over one hundred books and essays during the last two centuries have denied the existence of Jesus. Their arguments, he says, are dismissed as 'weak and bizarre' by contemporary New Testament scholars. Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant.' Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt."[145]
Referring to an early article (Challenging Doherty: Critiquing the Mythicist Case) Doherty states that mainstream scholarship is guilty of a "notable lack of proper understanding of the mythicist case and effective arguments to be brought against it."[146]
"The issue of credibility is a subjective one. Quite apart from a disposition to examine, or refuse to examine, an alternative scenario, one must be able and willing to think outside the box before alternatives can impress themselves upon one. There are those, scholars and laypeople alike, who regularly assume that something 'big' and unique, some powerful figure, had to be responsible for the Christian movement. But if one has consistently misread that movement, failed to recognize its antecedents, the steps of its development, imposed preconceptions upon it, they will be forever forced to make the same erroneous assumption, and alternatives will not commend themselves."[145]

[Farnhamia]

Nobody knows, there's no evidence for, so it's possible that Jesus was a girl.

Would make sense without a male being present,

Would also explain how he/she was able to keep the interests of 12 other men as well.....

Unfortunately, given the patriarchical tone of the times, the local authorities wouldn't have hesitated to stone a woman who dared to teach men. So if nothing else, we can sure that misogyny guarantees Jesus was not a woman.

1st century phone rings
St Paul: Tarsus Tents, Paul speak ... Sorry, I can't stop doing that.
St Matthew: Paul? Hi, it's Matthew.
P: Matt, how are you?
M: I'm good, thanks. So, listen, what did you think of the gospel I sent you?
P: It was pretty good, Matt, really, I liked it a lot, but ...
M: What?
P: You're going to have to change Jesus' gender.
M: I can't do that!
P: Trust me, my friend, you have to or I'm going to have a hell of a time selling this to the Gentiles.
M: But ... but ... I was there, Paul, Jesus was a woman, I can't just up and change her to a man.
P: It'll never play in Greece, and you can forget about the Roman franchise if we don't. Those guys are not going accept a Supreme Deity who ... you know, once a month.
M: Well, but ... It never bothered us.
P: It'll bother them.
M: I guess.
P: Good man. Look, I can take care of Luke and John, can you talk to Mark?
M: He's not going to like this.
P: Try. Have him call me if it's really a problem.

[Skirrata]

Seeing as how the NE was written mostly by eye witnesses of Jesus, that died at most 20 years later than him, how are the earliest accounts 100 years after jesus?

And we have found less than 10 writings of Socrates, and even less origanal versions of many famous philosephers, yet no one doubts they existed.

[JLAEST]

They must know best:

Richard Burridge and Graham Gould (2004: References below) state that the questioning of Jesus' existence is not accepted by mainstream critical scholarship.[8] Robert E. Van Voorst has stated that biblical scholars and historians regard the Jesus never existed thesis as "effectively refuted".[9] Graham N. Stanton writes, "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."[10] James Charlesworth writes "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ..."[11] Michael Grant believes that the Christ myth theory fails to satisfy modern critical methodology, and is rejected by all but a few modern scholars.[12]
However, the question of Jesus' historical existence is an ongoing inquiry, with initiatives such as the Jesus Project actively investigating the available evidence. Earl Doherty states "after a survey of the history of research into the historical Jesus, Van Voorst tackles 'the noisy side current' of Jesus mythicism. He notes that over one hundred books and essays during the last two centuries have denied the existence of Jesus. Their arguments, he says, are dismissed as 'weak and bizarre' by contemporary New Testament scholars. Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant.' Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt."[145]
Referring to an early article (Challenging Doherty: Critiquing the Mythicist Case) Doherty states that mainstream scholarship is guilty of a "notable lack of proper understanding of the mythicist case and effective arguments to be brought against it."[146]
"The issue of credibility is a subjective one. Quite apart from a disposition to examine, or refuse to examine, an alternative scenario, one must be able and willing to think outside the box before alternatives can impress themselves upon one. There are those, scholars and laypeople alike, who regularly assume that something 'big' and unique, some powerful figure, had to be responsible for the Christian movement. But if one has consistently misread that movement, failed to recognize its antecedents, the steps of its development, imposed preconceptions upon it, they will be forever forced to make the same erroneous assumption, and alternatives will not commend themselves."[145]

This site has some good stuff too: http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/dje.shtml

Oh, thank you Peter Joseph. It is so much more fun to be a post-Zeitgeist Christian...

[Farnhamia]

This site has some good stuff too: http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/dje.shtml

Oh, thank you Peter Joseph. It is so much more fun to be a post-Zeitgeist Christian...

I think the text of Tacitus actually says "Chrestus" and not "Christus." The former was a fairly common Greek slave-name. A good deal of that article seems to say, "Hey, a lot of stuff from ancient times has been lost, so Jesus must have been real, we just misplaced the paperwork that would prove it." In a much more scholarly way, of course.

I'm no fan of "Zeitgeist," and I have always leaned toward there having been some one person around whom the Jesus stories gathered, but we really don't know.