Llyricist

ahem.... you didn't catch the facetious nature of what I said?

spamandham

I waffle back and forth between MJ and HJ. I can see no valid reason to assume the historical Jesus, if he existed, was a first century itinerate preacher, unless a case could be made that John the Baptist is the prototype.

But in my mind, I can see no reason why the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, Julius Caesar, or even King Tut could not be the historical Jesus. Jesus is so intertwined with the Jesus myths (including aspects of it recorded by Josephus and Tacitus) that it doesn't seem valid to say anything at all about him.

In my mind, if you can't reasonably establish anything of substance about him, then you can't reasonably claim he is historical either. That doesn't mean he wasn't, it just means it isn't valid to conclude he was. "Parsimony" is not an acceptable argument to me, and thus far it's the only actual answer provided to the OP.

It also disturbs me that those who promote HJ wholesale ignore the books of Enoch in which a very similar Son of God character was recorded hundreds of years prior to the advent of Christianity, and they seem to completely gloss over the meaning of the word "Jesus". Sure, Jesus was a popular name in the first century, but it also has a meaning that makes it ideal for mystics. Are we really to believe that's just coincidence?

"I don't know" still remains the best answer as far as I can tell.

Doug Shaver

How so? None of Jim Jones' followers said he was any kind of god. Neither did any of David Koresh's, to my current knowledge.

Furthermore, what "living Jesus" are you talking about? Whatever Jones and Koresh accomplished with their personal charisma happened only while they still alive. If there was a real Jesus, his followers didn't do anything to attract anyone's attention until many years after he departed this world.

jakejonesiv

No :redface: but I am glad you meant it that way.

Amaleq13

I used to strongly agree with this but a thread Ben Smith created some time ago seems to me to present a compelling argument for a more recent HJ:

Paul and his older contemporary, Jesus.

Amaleq13

The important similarity, IMO, is the enormous devotion of the followers that resulted in what most would consider deluded thoughts about the central figure.

I agree that they essentially didn't do anything but continue to venerate him for many years after he departed this world. And that, alone, appears to have obtained the attention of Paul.

andrewcriddle

You are probably referring to the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) which does not speak of a Son of God but does emphasise a supernatural Son of Man with significant parallels to the use of that title in the Gospels.

(Son of God as a title does not occur AFAIK in the early Enoch material although in 1 Enoch 105 God says '...for I and my son will join ourselves with them for ever...')

The problem with the Similitudes of Enoch is that their date is very uncertain (unlike the other parts of 1 Enoch no fragments of the Similitudes were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls) Dates by modern scholars vary between 100 BCE and 300 CE with most dating it in the 1st century CE.

Hence the pre-Christian date of the Similitudes is not at all clear.


Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

I agree. A first century date CE would make the wrintings of Similitudes of Enoch and the rise of Christianity roughly contemporary. If Christianity is, as I suspect, a second century religion, the Similitudes could be a bit earlier.

In the Similitudes we see the combination of the Son of Man in Daniel with the servant of Isaiah, but no Jesus and no Son of God.

We see a judment scene in Matthew 25:31-46 that is similar to 1 Enoch 62-63.

I have already pointed out similarities in imagery between 1 Enoch and Revelation. (Note especially the comparision of Revelation 12:2 with 1 Enoch 62:4. ).

Rather than insist that one was dependant on the other, do you think it is possible that both grew out of common religous ideas that were swirling in that era?

Jake Jones IV

Doug Shaver

OK. I don't have a good counterargument handy. I can only note at this point that I don't find it the least bit persuasive.

spamandham

The counter argument is that fanatical believers exist even today, and not a single one of them can reasonably claim to have known Jesus or any friends of Jesus or any decendants of friends of Jesus, etc.

If that can be the case today, why can it not have been the case 2000 years ago?