Was Jesus Real?

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Correction:
Independent Vision, in a earlier reply to you, I made the following comment:

Albert Schweitzer said that the quest for Jesus is similar to looking down a well and finding that the face reflected back at us is our own.

I'm currently re-reading Freeman's book - and will follow that up with another before continuing with the discussion (DeistPaladin, please note) - and came across the following statement:

On page 21 of A New History Of Early Christianity by Charles Freeman, I came across the following, which I must have missed the first time I read this book...

A wise nineteenth-century theologian, George Tyrrell, remarked that if one looked down a well in order to find the historical Jesus, the face that peered back at one from the water was usually one's own!

In the Notes at the back of the book, he comments:

This quotation is often attributed to Albert Schweitzer but the original source is the Jesuit theologian George Tyrrell (1861-1909).

Touché! I stand corrected and apologize to all for the error.

Does this mean that Beowulf was a historical person too? Considering that most everything in the story as far as locations and people are known to have existed?

Also, I'd like to point out that even the people of the "Jesus Myth Theory" doesn't necessarily say that there never was a Yeshua who was a messiah, but merely that the Jesus of the BIBLE didn't exist, not that he wasn't inspired by a preacher/priest/prophet by the name of Yeshua.

But then again, what is with the whole drivel about the Q document? It's a document that may or may not have existed that a lot of the people who argue for Jesus historicy bring up time and time again. And the embarrassment thing? Why aren't we applying the same line of reasoning to the Beowulf story to conclude that Beowulf existed then?

Laurens has addressed the Beowulf point, but I wish to post what Freeman says about the "Q" document, whilst discussing the historical Jesus (from page 23 of chapter 3, "Jesus Before The Gospels"):

Any search for a historical "human" Jesus requires a method of delving through the gospel narratives, those of Matthew, Mark and Luke, the so-called synoptic gospels ("synoptic" from the Greek because they share "the same eye"), to find the bedrock of the earliest oral traditions about him. Matthew and Luke draw heavily on the earlier gospel of Mark but they also share passages that are not in Mark, so it is possible to deduce that there must have been a document, which is even earlier than Mark, on which they both relied. It has been given the prosaic title "Q", from the German Quelle, "source" and there are some 220 verses from Matthew and Luke that appear to come from it. It is largely composed of sayings of Jesus. It is assumed that Q was originally written in Greek and contains some of the earliest records of the Greek-speaking Christian-Jewish communities of Jerusalem. Jesus confidently presents himself in Q as the chosen of God, responsible for bringing this message that a transformation is to take place on Earth. There is no mention in Q of the Passion or resurrection or to Jesus as saviour so one can hardly call Q an early form of gospel.

When I've finished this and another book on my reading list, A Sceptic's Guide To Atheism by Peter Williams (as I see it has a appendix on the evidence for Jesus), "I'll be back!".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Laurens]

I wrote this today and thought it might be relevant to this topic:


I don't think it is unreasonable to posit that there was once a Jewish preacher from Nazareth called Yeshua who would eventually become known as Jesus Christ the messiah. There are some who posit the notion that Jesus never existed, however, to scholars of the New Testament there is little doubt about the Christian religion had some basis in historical fact. Take the accounts of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke, they both go to great lengths to show that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (although they both come up with different ways of getting Mary and Joseph there). The reason Bethlehem is important is because the book of Micah (5:1-2) it is prophesied as being the birthplace of the messiah. The authors of Matthew and Luke came up against a problem; it was widely known that Jesus was from Nazareth, they both arrive at a solution - a narrative explaining how Jesus was born in Bethlehem. If Jesus was a fictional character these two extraordinary accounts would be unnecessary; he could simply be Jesus of Bethlehem rather than Jesus of Nazareth. The problem was that people knew Jesus was from Nazareth, he was a real person and some knowledge of him was preserved in oral tradition. The historicity of Jesus, however, does not mean that the gospels are historically reliable.

When you read Matthew and Luke's accounts of Jesus' birth there is no way a rationally minded person could say that they are describing the same events. Matthew mentions the dreams Joseph, the wise men, the slaughter of the children by Herod, the exile into Egypt, none of which are mentioned in Luke. Luke mentions the birth of John the baptist, the census of Caesar, the trip to Bethlehem, the search for an inn, the manger, the shepherds, Jesus' circumcision, the presentation at the Temple and the return home afterwards, all of which are absent in Matthew's account. The historians among us are faced with some problems if both of these accounts are held as being accurate. Matthew places Jesus' birth at the time of king Herod, whereas Luke places it during the time that Quirinius was governor of Syria. The problem is Herod died a whole ten years before Quirinius became governor of Syria, the two accounts cannot both be accurate (unless you are willing to believe that Jesus was born twice).

There is also no contemporary historical accounts of the nasty child killing carried out by Herod, and no evidence of an empire-wide census either (an event which surely would have been documented). From this I think it is not unreasonable to conclude that the authors of Matthew and Luke simply fabricated their accounts of Jesus' birth in order to appear to fulfil prophecies. The authors were writing independently, which explains the contradictions and historical inaccuracies. Matthew constantly refers to prophecies being fulfilled in his account which gives further indication that they were written to defend against criticism (the Jews - who would not accept the Christian's messiah claims were bound to be asking questions). "How could Jesus, who was widely known to be from Nazareth be the messiah? Prophecy tells us that the messiah would be from Bethlehem" critics might have asked. Matthew and Luke each came up with an answer. The extravagant accounts of Jesus' birth in the gospels would be completely unnecessary if he had been born in Bethlehem, and they would also be unnecessary if he never existed.

As you can see the Bible is hardly reliable as a historical account, but we can infer from all this that there was indeed a man from Nazareth whom people claimed was the messiah.

 

[Nordmann]

The reason Bethlehem is important is because the book of Micah (5:1-2) it is prophesied as being the birthplace of the messiah. The authors of Matthew and Luke came up against a problem; it was widely known that Jesus was from Nazareth, they both arrive at a solution - a narrative explaining how Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

The problem was that people knew Jesus was from Nazareth, he was a real person and some knowledge of him was preserved in oral tradition.

Hi Laurens - your point is also one that has been made by Hitchens and appears reasonable at face value.

However as a person more accustomed to normal historical analysis conducted according to normal historical criteria I would suggest two possible (I would consider them two probable) factors which work against your point regarding Nazareth supporting claims of historicity for the narrative's main character, and indeed push the whole narrative along with the character even further into myth and further away from an historical basis than you have done. This in fact lessens rather than enhances the possibility of a real man of any description at the myth's core, in other words.

While it is undoubtedly more than likely that the Bethlehem part of the narrative is indeed a fiction designed to make the biographical detail fit a prophecy which itself had to be "fulfilled" in order to provide spurious credentials for the divinity of the central character, the reason for doing this might not be to relocate a person from Nazareth to Bethlehem at birth but simply to locate the birth at Bethlehem, period, regardless of where earlier or even later tradition might wish to place it. This opens up the possibility that Nazareth also is a fiction (or as some allege a misunderstanding) and this is where I believe that what is presented to us as serious historical analysis of this subject has deviated wildly from the standard criteria which normally apply in such analysis.

Despite some centuries of archaeological endeavour on the part of some very agenda-driven individuals determined to "unearth" the Nazareth of their religion's alleged founder's childhood, their efforts in archeological terms have not only let them down with respect to establishing data concerning the town's topography, layout, population and dimensions, but in fact has yielded data which appears to contradict the claim that a settlement called Nazareth of any description actually existed at the time required to substantiate the narrative. This raises the question of why it appears in the narrative at all. Unlike Bethlehem, which at least has a motive which can be philologically traced back to Jewish scripture, philological and archaeological attempts to trace the pedigree of this particular claim lead nowhere. It is either a complete fiction or a complete misinterpretation of something previously believed important to the narrative, and we don't even know if the fiction was in circulation prior or subsequent to the recording of the narratives, so polluted has the philological trail been rendered by subsequent redaction, interpolation and blatant falsification of the record in question.

Whichever might be the case it cannot be used, I think, to even back-handedly support the plausibility of the existence of an historical character at the root of the myth (and I am using "myth" as opposed to "legend" quite deliberately - they have distinct meanings in academic terms). It is, in my view, simply yet more evidence that it is futile even to try, so great has been the application of fictionalisation, often quite deliberately applied to the subject matter already. In historical study this is not an unusual phenomenon encountered when studying ancient history and especially when trying to adduce historical justification for mythical claims. The normal assumption when such obfuscation is encountered, and especially when such blatant manipulation of the myth is evident and traceable, is to leave the elements of the myth which are unsubstantiated by hard data consigned to myth. This is no exception.

Until some such hard data is produced - and as yet not one iota of evidence fitting normal historical criteria has been so produced - then Jesus is myth founded in myth.

 

[Laurens]

My point would be why, if Jesus was invented with no basis in fact, doesn't the story just declare that Jesus was from Bethlehem? Clearly Matthew and Luke are going to great lengths to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem because people knew he was from Nazareth. Why make up the story otherwise? If Jesus was made up, they could just say he was born in Bethlehem, the stories exist because people knew that he wasn't. Why else would such great lengths be taken to explain how Jesus came from Bethlehem to Nazareth?

I agree that there is little evidence for the historical Jesus, but I think it's wrong to claim that Jesus never existed. Why wouldn't he have existed? I believe that he was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, who taught of an imminent Kingdom of God, whose followers thought him to be the messiah, and was executed by the Romans. Why is it so implausible that Christianity is legends built around a historical person? Many other religions spring up as personality cults, often as off shoots of another religion. I don't think it's likely that such a tradition sprang purely from fiction.

 

[Nordmann]

I believe that he was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, who taught of an imminent Kingdom of God, whose followers thought him to be the messiah, and was executed by the Romans.

You are of course at liberty to believe what you wish and your hypothesis is as potentially accurate as that of anyone else who is trying to construct one based on the actual data to hand.

However you are departing from the rather strict criteria which is made to apply in other historical case studies - as have a plethora of scholars (some with rather more academic ability than others) in the past. Your disregard for the rather fundamental probability, for example, that there was no Nazareth is something which in other cases of historical analysis you would be expected to support with data substantiating any alternative claim to the reality which the extant data apparently supports.

I am not saying that you are wrong to hypothesise. But extrapolations based on such hypothesis should be prefaced with the proviso and warning to the reader that this is all they are. Such provisos are lacking in historical assessments of Jesus traditionally, allowing some things to be accepted as "fact" which in fact have never been established as such at all. I however am not of the opinion that this exemption from normal academic standards should apply in this case. I can understand why those with a religious agenda or those who wish to sell books on the theme might disagree with me, but I would expect people of a more rational and unbiased a bent to examine all the claims within the narrative sceptically, without any exceptions - and the claim that Jesus grew up in a town which apparently never existed at the time actually fails this scrutiny even more than the one that he was born in Bethlehem, which at least did exist.

In essence the whole narrative falls for want of substantiation and in light of contradictory archaeological and philological evidence. To use any of it to make a "reasonable guess" on the veracity of any of its content is a waste of reason!

 

[Laurens]

The messiah claims of the Christians were highly contested by the Jews (and considered blasphemous). The Jews got a lot of stick from the Christians for rejecting Jesus, but it was not without reason that the Jews dismissed the claims. The Jews knew that the messiah was prophesied to be a great king like David, who would unite Israel and drive their oppressors from the land instilling a new era of peace and prosperity. There was no prophecy of a suffering messiah. Jesus was a peasant and a criminal, he didn't drive the oppressors out of Israel he was brutally and humiliatingly crushed by them.

I am not quite sure how the notion of Jesus being the messiah originally arose. Perhaps it is because Jesus was referred to as the 'Son of Man' or the 'Son of God' - terms used in Jewish scripture to denote someone held in special favour by God (not any kind of incarnation of God however). Whatever the case, the Christians came to believe that Jesus was the messiah - a view which was highly opposed by the Jews. In order to respond to these criticisms the Christians endeavoured to fabricate myths about Jesus in order to fulfil prophecies, and thus have some legitimacy to their messiah claims.

The gospels (and the prior oral traditions) are of course heavily biased towards a Christian view point. Their purpose was to legitimize their claims and convince potential converts. No doubt the authors were aware of how the Jews reacted to their claims that Jesus was the messiah, and this would explain why Matthew and Luke fabricated different nativity stories in order to fulfil prophecy. Matthew in particular constantly refers to prophecies being fulfilled - to me they appear to be documents trying to legitimize claims made about a historical teacher, rather than complete fabrications.

 

[Laurens]

I agree that we can infer very little about Jesus, however I do not feel I am treading too far into the grounds of the unreasonable when I posit that there probably was a preacher from Galilee called Yeshua, who eventually became the Christ of Christianity.

edit: I didn't claim we have any hardcore evidence of Jesus, however in the realm of what is reasonable to me, Jesus existing isn't that far out a thing to be claiming. I see a lot of atheists claiming he never existed which to me just seems naive and reactionary, a product of bias towards atheism as it were. I am not saying I have definite proof, I am just saying that it's actually not unreasonable to assume Jesus was real. To me the claim (that I often see made) that Jesus never existed is a more unreasonable one to make. He might not have existed, this is within the realm of possibility, but I don't think anyone should claim that he never existed (I'm not saying you do claim that by the way, I have however seen that claim made by hardcore atheists).

 

[kenandkids]

I agree that we can infer very little about Jesus, however I do not feel I am treading too far into the grounds of the unreasonable when I posit that there probably was a preacher from Galilee called Yeshua, who eventually became the Christ of Christianity.

Indeed, the period had plenty of wandering death cult preachers. I disagree that there was only one who inspired the later church. Not only are there glaring inaccuracies in the timeline as you point out, a single heretical preacher walking town to town attracting large crowds would not have been allowed by Romans. He would have disrupted the status quo and made enemies everywhere, this would have made the Romans nervous. They had a pattern to their occupations and this particular death cult leader would have disrupted the pattern.






Two American christians journey to Israel.
They take in all of the sites mentioned in the bible, except one.
While wandering around looking for it, they find a man near a tour booth.
"We're looking for the Nazareth that Jesus was from," they tell him.
"Wasn't real," says the man.
"Of course it was," they say while holding up a bible.
"It wasn't built until after," is the reply.
"Now see here! I know it existed because it's in the bible!"
The man looks at them and says,"Okay, maybe it's a language issue, I'm told I have a thick accent. Please pronounce the letter P as in pumpkin."
They do.
"Now the letter T, as in terrific."
They do.
"Now the letter F as in Nazareth."
"There is no F in Nazareth!"
"That's what I've been trying to tell you!"

 

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

My first post - hello everyone
(I came here following AronRa vs a creationist.)

My favourite subject (you'll find me all over arguing the JM theory.) So I read the thread, here's a couple of quick comments on some issues I saw :

1. The Council of Nicea did not have actually anything to do with deciding the canon - with choosing the books of the NT. They did not even discuss the canon. The myth that the CoN decided the canon is one of the most common urban legends of all time - endlessly repeated on the 'net.

2. None of the Gospels were written by anyone who met Jesus, nor were any epistle written by anyone who met Jesus. That's the consensus of modern NT scholars - they don't say it quite so baldly, but checking sources such as Raymond Brown or Udo Schnelle or Ehrman or the New Jerome Bible Commentary shows that each book was written by some unknown person who never met Jesus. Paul is slightly different of course, but he only had a vision of Jesus.

So that leads me to the meat of my first post :


The Alleged eye-witnesses to Jesus.
It is sometimes claimed that the NT was written by followers of Jesus, by people who met him, and thus these books are powerful evidence of his existence.
So whether you believe they were, or agree with the consensus of NT scholars that they were not, who actually CLAIMED to have personally met Jesus themselves ?

Here is my analysis of some claim sometimes put forward as such -


G.John - Prologue
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; this one was in the beginning with God; all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened. In him was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it.
... And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth. "

Unknown Author
G.John is a book written by some UNKNOWN person. That is the consensus of modern NT scholars. The author does NOT identify himself - instead we have BELIEFS and CLAIMS about the author by OTHERS.
About some spiritual being
The Prologue is NOT about any historical person. Just LOOK at this :
"this one was in the beginning with God; all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened. In him was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it. "
This is obviously spiritual language about a divine being (the Risen Christ). It's part of a spiritual sounding passage so different from the rest of the book it has it's own name - the Prologue. NOWHERE else in the book is the word "logos" used about Jesus. The OTHER part of the book is about Jesus, but the Prologue is about the Risen Christ - a heavenly being.
No clear personal connection
Finally, the argument rests entirely on the tiny phrase :
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory". As if the "us" (and the "we") MUST mean that the author is specifically included. When it fact it could just have easily meant the group in general.

G.John - Appendix
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was later added to this Gospel, and it is clearly someone else making a 3rd person claim for the book. Some later group added this "we" and "his testimony" is not an eye-witness account. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.

1 John
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched ,this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
He starts with "that which was from the beginning" - that's not a historical Jesus. What he saw and looked at and touched - but what? No mention of a historical Jesus there. He "proclaims concerning the Word of Life" - so it's about the "Word of Life" - something divine, but certainly not a historical Jesus. What he proclaims is "the eternal life" which "appeared to him". That's the key passage - the word of life appeared to the writer. The Greek is "ephanerothe", meaning a vision or appearance or apparition.
So the writer had a vision or apparition of the Word of Life. Just like Paul. Certainly not a historical Jesus.

G.Luke.
"Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
just as those who were eye-witnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us,"
I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received."

Does Luke actually claim to be an eye-witness? No.
Does Luke actually claim to have spoken to eye-witnesses? No.
Does Luke actually identify any eye-witness? No.
Does Luke directly connect his writings with the eye-witnesses? No.

All that he says about eye-witnesses amounts to : "Many have written a narrative about the events based on what the eye-witnesses handed down to us." No connection is made between the eye-witnesses and Luke or his writings.

THEN Luke describes his OWN VERSION : "after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you" NO mention of eye-witnesses here, merely the claim his version is ACCURATE and ORDERLY. So, the use of the word "eye-witnesses" has no bearing on Luke's writing.


2 Peter
1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But - 2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claims. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus.


In all the NT there is only one clear actual claim to have met a historical Jesus - in a late, obvious forgery. Strong evidence AGAINST the historicity of Jesus.



Kapyong

 

[kenandkids]

I just finished watching this for the first time, quite amusing. http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_God_Who_Wasn_t_There/70034481?trkid=2361637

 

[Independent Vision]

I suppose the main reason is that Beowulf hasn't had such an impact on Western culture.

There are all these people in the world who believe in Jesus, questions about the historical Jesus are bound to arise. No doubt the same questions would arise if a vast number of the population believed Beowulf to be the lord and saviour.

To me it is of very little consequence whether or not Jesus existed. I just personally find the various ideas and theories surrounding him to be interesting to study.

Oh, I agree. But I would love to, just once see some consistency. If A,B and C is what they use to "prove" Jesus of the Bible is a Historical fact then, if present, A, B and C proves Beowulf is a Historical fact as well. That is all I am saying. If A,B and C= historical truth it can be applied across the board. Not just regarding Jesus just because a larger number of people believe in that particular fairy tale. Apply A,B and C to the legends about Avalon, King Arthur and the Knights of the round table. A lot of people believe Avalon is a real place, or was a real place as well. *shrugs* It probably will not hold up even to the A,B and C but I want some consistency.

Just because a lot of people believe in something doesn't mean it's got any more legitimacy than anything else, which is what I want to see people understand. Although... I think that when you apply A,B and C to alien abductions you might get some problems... heh

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

I
edit: I didn't claim we have any hardcore evidence of Jesus, however in the realm of what is reasonable to me, Jesus existing isn't that far out a thing to be claiming. I see a lot of atheists claiming he never existed which to me just seems naive and reactionary, a product of bias towards atheism as it were. I am not saying I have definite proof, I am just saying that it's actually not unreasonable to assume Jesus was real. To me the claim (that I often see made) that Jesus never existed is a more unreasonable one to make. He might not have existed, this is within the realm of possibility, but I don't think anyone should claim that he never existed (I'm not saying you do claim that by the way, I have however seen that claim made by hardcore atheists).

I have a feeling you may not comprehend the meaning of "naive":
1. a. having or expressing innocence and credulity; ingenuous
b. ( as collective noun; preceded by the ): only the naive believed him
2. artless or unsophisticated
3. lacking developed powers of analysis, reasoning, or criticism: a naive argument
4. another word for primitive

The incredulity of Jesus' actual existence is hardly "naive" due to the shear lack of credible evidence - what evidence there is employs whimsical speculation (hypothetical texts and/or ambiguous mentions in unrelated accounts), special pleading (the embarrassment factor, ignoring the blatant references to other mythological figures, the shear unlikeliness of virtually no independent records) , argumentum ad populum (billions of people hold him ot be their Saviour therefore it warrants a different set of standards) and so on. Believing Jesus was a historical figure displays naivety, disbelieving his historicity denotes healthy skepticism.

 

[Laurens]

The incredulity of Jesus' actual existence is hardly "naive" due to the shear lack of credible evidence - what evidence there is employs whimsical speculation (hypothetical texts and/or ambiguous mentions in unrelated accounts), special pleading (the embarrassment factor, ignoring the blatant references to other mythological figures, the shear unlikeliness of virtually no independent records) , argumentum ad populum (billions of people hold him ot be their Saviour therefore it warrants a different set of standards) and so on. Believing Jesus was a historical figure displays naivety, disbelieving his historicity denotes healthy skepticism.

I'm not claiming that Jesus definitely existed, nor denying it. I don't accept much of the bad historical arguments in his favour such as the 'people died for their belief in Jesus therefore he must be real' etc. There are some good arguments though, like the argument from the birth stories in Matthew and Luke - it's not conclusive, but why go to great lengths to get Jesus to Bethlehem in different ways if he was a mythical figure? The explanation that these accounts were an attempt to fulfil prophecy about the messiah being born in Bethlehem when he was known to be from Nazareth is a reasonably sound explanation and not one that should be discounted outright. Yes it is not definitive, but it provides a decent explanation for why Matthew and Luke go to great lengths to get Jesus to Bethlehem. If he was simply invented couldn't they do away with the complicated and contradictory accounts and simply have him born there in the first place? If no one knew who he was (because he had been invented) then no one would question this. To me it seems plausible that the accounts were independently created as a response to 'hang on a second, the messiah was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem, but everyone knows Jesus was from Nazareth, so how can he be the messiah?'

Either way it doesn't really bother me, and I certainly agree that the evidence is scant and inconclusive, but neither is there conclusive evidence that he was an entirely mythical figure. The honest answer would be that I don't know, however it is not implausible thatJesus was a real person, and I don't feel it is out of line as a skeptic to claim this. If I said he definitely or most probably existed then, yeah, but that isn't what I'm claiming.

 

[WarK]

The explanation that these accounts were an attempt to fulfil prophecy about the messiah being born in Bethlehem when he was known to be from Nazareth is a reasonably sound explanation and not one that should be discounted outright. Yes it is not definitive, but it provides a decent explanation for why Matthew and Luke go to great lengths to get Jesus to Bethlehem. If he was simply invented couldn't they do away with the complicated and contradictory accounts and simply have him born there in the first place?

Maybe they were tweaking one fictional story to fit other fictional stories?

I think it's worth to make a distinction between the mythical jesus and a person or persons he was based on. Some of the stories may have roots in actually people or events, others are made up from scratch or reworking of earlier stories.

 

[Dean]

Back OT,

Put short, Jesus almost certainly was a real person, although I would add that there need be some serious historical and biblical connotations made to that, given the fact that all of the documents supposedly chronicling his life were written 60-100 years after his death ...

 

[Laurens]

Ehrman has written a new book titled 'Did Jesus Exist?'



EDIT that video didn't actually have much to do with his book haha :roll: oops. Urmm here's a link to the book though http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Did-Jesus-Exist-Bart-D-Ehrman/?isbn=9780062089946

 

[Dr. cox]

yes jesus was real, no he wasnts gods only son.

 

[DeistPaladin]

yes jesus was real, no he wasnts gods only son.

If Jesus wasn't the "Son of God", or God-incarnate, or an angel sent by God, or any other sort of miracle-working supernatural being, if he was just another doomcrier of the time or some mortal leader of a Jewish splinter faction, then he wasn't "JESUS".

Take away all the miracles and the supernatural events from the Gospels and I'm not sure what you'd have left. Right now, I'm struggling to think of any stories in the Gospels that weren't centered around some miracle or an unlikely superhuman feat. In the case of the latter, we have scenes where Jesus managed to escape his capture by an angry mob in his hometown or when he single-handedly threw out all the merchants in the temple. Furthermore, if the miracles are all to be discarded as untrue, why take the same accounts at their word regarding his teachings or ministry?

Seriously, let's take stock of this and come up with some kind of definition of "the historical Jesus" that we can all agree on if we are to have a clear conversation on this issue:

1. Some 1st century man from Judea named "Yeshua" (a common name back then)
2. A doomcrier or end-times prophet (common at that time and place)
3. A leader of a splinter faction of Jews (again, nothing unusual here)
4. He taught some things but wrote none of it down (then how do we know for sure what he taught?)
5. His followers thought he was the messiah (there were many claimants to that title back then).
6. He was crucified by Pilate (Pilate was an iron-fisted governor who crucified many Jews).

If this is what you mean by "The Historical Jesus", there were probably several 1st century Jewish leaders who fit the description above.

If the Gospels are based on the life of any Jewish leader, good luck ever knowing the true story and separating it from all the mythology and folklore. Even if there was some historical Jesus, he would probably bear so little resemblance to the Gospel character that we might as well say the Gospel character never existed.

 

[nefariousvirtuoso]

Meh.
I dont really care make with the proof of the supernatural you claim or STFU.

 

[Prolescum]

Meh.
I dont really care make with the proof of the supernatural you claim or STFU.

Manners dear boy, manners.