Juststeve

Toto:

You are just mistaken about what ancient historians do. How would one produce a biography of Socrates, for example, except through an intelligent analysis of often conflicting sources, primarily Plato and Xenophon? Socrates himself left no writing, there are no monuments bearing his name or inscription, there are only ancient documents in which others told stories about him. Are you suggesting that we can know nothing about Socrates? If not, just how would you propose to verify Plato and Xenophon?

It is you that proposes a different standard in the case of Jesus, not me.

Steve

Toto

But you don't find ancient historians debating the issue - because there is no way of knowing, and no need to know. There are a few external sources to Plato that indicate there was a historical Socrates, but even if Plato made him up, it wouldn't change anyone's life.

Ancient historians do not claim to be able to construct a biography of the historical Hercules, or King Midas (even though the latter might be based on a historical king.)

bacht

Isn't Jesus a special case because of the claims made about him? The gospel writers don't just describe him as a prophet or teacher, they insist he is the most important person ever to walk the earth.

A better comparison with Socrates would be someone like Nehemiah or Ezra, allegedly historical characters who did natural human things like building walls and writing books.

Juststeve

bacht:

Some of the claims about Jesus are different, some are not. To the extent the claims are fantastic they can be and ought to be rejected. I don’t think he walked on water or came back to life after three days dead. On the other hand some of the claims about Jesus are in no respect fantastic. Some are exactly like the claims made about Socrates, that he lived, that he taught, that he had followers and that he was ultimately put to death by the State. In these cases only insignificant details differ.

The fact that people came to believe fantastic things about Jesus does not cause me to doubt the mundane claims. There is no reason to. I already know that fantastic legends evolve around real historical figures. Did George Washington really throw a dollar across the Delaware, was the Buddha really born speaking?

Unlike the other side of this dispute I am by no means dogmatic. Could Jesus be a character made up from whole cloth? Its possible, I just see no reason to think its probable.

Steve

maryhelena

Fine, as long as you are happy with the prospect of never being able to establish the historicity of such a Jesus. Once the mythological elements are removed all that would be left is a normal human man - an everyman, a nobody. Impossible to find such a figure in history. The issue here is not probabilities or possibilities - the issue is the impossibility of ever finding such a Jesus in history.
Yes, the possibility of a whole cloth Jesus is there. However, the more realistic scenario is that a Jewish story would have some connection to an interpretation of history - history seen through a prophetic or theological lens - 'salvation' history.

bacht

The paradox is always this: how did a noboby become elevated to the Son of God? Or how did the Son of God walk the earth without anyone noticing?

The character of Jesus could have been assembled from more than one real person. But the gospels are clearly dependent on scripture for many points of the story, which diminishes the likelihood of honest reporting. Even the date of Jesus' career is suspicious: exactly 40 years before the fall of the temple, just coincidence?

Note that in the NT epistles Jesus is not described as an earthly being. One argument is that this spiritual Christ was the starting point for the whole thing. You could say that Jesus was born in the 2nd C when heretics and gnostics forced the proto-Catholics to present Christ to the world as flesh and blood.

aa5874

You have NO evidence whatsoever that the Jesus story have any connection to an interpretation of history.

We have written statements of antiquity that Jesus was a product of supposed predictions in Hebrew Scripture.

The authors of the Gospels, especially the Synoptics, demonstrated that their Jesus was PRIMARILY derived from Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint.

There is no need to guess.

The authors of the Gospels consistently referred to their Jesus Messiah as the fulfillment of the Scriptures.

Jesus of the Gospels was NOT based on an interpretation of history but an interpretation of out-of-context passages that were believed to be prophecies.

Isaiah 7.14 was used by the author of gMatthew and gLuke to show the prophecy about the origin of their Jesus. Clearly the NT Jesus is not an interpretation of history but interpretations of misguided interpretations of passages found in Hebrew Scripture.

There is no need to guess.

The Jesus story, it would appear, was fabricated because some anonymous writer believed that Jesus had ALREADY come based on his own flawed interpretations of what has turned out to be non-prophecies.

In effect, the Jesus character was based on FALSE prophecies which Jesus AMAZINGLY did fulfill in the NT.

avi

Thanks bacht, superb, as always.

However, in my opinion, the more significant question is why an omnipotent being required a son?

Farmers need sons.
Old people need children to care for them in our dotage.
Wealthy people need offspring to whom they can convey their earthly possessions.

But, why does an omnipotent god require a child?

avi

avi

Maybe, instead of worrying about whether or not someone writes with capital letters, and bold text, you may wish to focus instead on the ideas being expressed.

<edit>

avi

EarlDoherty

There is no such "fact" to confront. There is zero evidence that the Jesus stories circulated before the 2nd century. The first bare minimum of the Gospel bio is found in the letters of Ignatius, which may not be authentic, and at the earliest would be around 110. There is also a lot of negative evidence that they did not circulate in the first century, since those bio elements are notably missing where we would expect to find them.

Modern scholarship may suggest it, but it is on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. There are no oral traditions identifiable with the Gospels to be found in all the early non-Gospel writings, so on what basis, except for wishful thinking, do scholars suggest this?

Is this how you present evidence in court?

Earl Doherty