bacht

Well if you want to get into questions like What is history? or What do we really know about ancient people? there have been lots of threads about these. Either history is something we can do with some success or it isn't. Jesus is supposedly an historical person, so the normal procedures of history should apply. If there isn't enough material to reach a conclusion then the honest historian should say so.

The New Testament is not impartial: all the writers present the Christ in descriptions intended to inspire worship. The whole corpus is drenched in supernaturalism, with little room for naturalistic analysis of Jesus or his followers (the faith of believers is not useful historical evidence except as manifestation of sociological or psychological phenomena)

mountainman

All scholars (with very few exceptions) have the one common non-differing opinion on the the theory of Eusebian history. Without any evidence they assume it must be true because it is traditional to do so.

All scholars (with very few exceptions) credit his "warped history". That the Eusebian history must be true and correct is a most senseless proposition without evidence to support it. Tradition requires that everyone continues to march around and around the Eusebian mulberry bush. They have no option. If Eusebius was just a mercanery literacist then Christianity and the New testament is as Emperor Julian claimed - "a fabrication and a fiction of men composed by wickedness".

kcdad

This is the philosophical fallacy at the heart of the problem. I would never call him a "historical" person. The word implies there is a "History" of Jesus... that is not what you find in the written accounts.
I do suggest he was a REAL person and the myths and legends surrounding him are based upon that REAL person.
As far as evidence (and you mean empirical, replicable evidence) is concerned... the Effect is the evidence of the Cause. The Effect does not insure that the stated Cause is the ultimate Cause, but none the less, it is evidence.

"aa...So, how do you intend to show that Jesus did exist as a mere human?

How do you know Jesus existed beyond writing him into books?"

I don't. If you are implying he may have existed as anything OTHER THAN a "mere" human... well... that's your problem.
And to answer your second question, I don't, and frankly my dear, I don't care. I am more interested in the teachings attributed to him.

I am not so filled with self importance that my opinion matters one way or the other, or that asserting something over and over again (HJ is a most senseless proposition) will make it true. Goebbels tried that with "The Big Lie" and as 16th President observed... You can't fool all the people all the time.

I suspect that the writings of Paul and the written documents called the gospels... ALL of them were written to comment on the teachings of a man and a movement that originated with John the Baptizer and seems to have been concentrated around Jesus of Nazareth. Now whether they were real people or not, historical or not, mythical or not... is to miss the real meaning behind the teachings anyway. I think, however, that by dismissing Jesus, you MUST also dismiss the entire early church movement as fictional, Paul, James and Peter, and even John the Baptizer...

kcdad

This is NOT true. It only seems that way from your modern scientific frame of reference. The EXACT same things were written about Alexander, Octavian and every other king or emperor in the western world... The Queen of England's title still includes God's chosen. Miracles, superhuman feats, divine status... none of that is new or unique to Jesus.

bacht

Okay... If you're saying that there must have been some originator (Jesus) because of the result (the Christian church) then I disagree. I don't think this is a particularly strong historical argument, though I'm no scholar. There are other possibilities besides such a linear cause-and-effect scenario. The true source of what became Catholicism could've been Paul, or the general milieu of apocalyptic Judaism ("the end is near, so the old rules don't apply anymore - be happy and wait, it won't be long until the New Age!")

bacht

This argument has been done to death here (and by smarter people than me). Yes there is much superstition and ignorance in ancient writers, but we don't have to rely only on literature for historical markers.

Josephus is a reasonable comparison to the NT writers. He was a literate priest who knew something about the wider world outside Palestine who was also a witness and participant in the recent events he describes. Most of his explanations for historical events are naturalistic, arising from the motives of the participants (as in "Herod did that because he wanted this"). He occasionally invokes supernatural phenomena as we might expect, but in general he is trying to write "real" history as defined by Greco-Roman and Jewish predecessors.

But when we turn to the gospels it's another world, "once-upon-a-time" in flavour, with messianism and eschatology and miracles in the fore. With the epistles it's like eavesdropping on conversations between mystics, subjective rather than objective.

aa5874

But, this all nonsense. You deny Jesus was historical and then immediately suggest he was REAL. What absurdity! How illogical!

Once you suggest Jesus was REAL it must mean that you are suggesting that Jesus was historical.

But, the conception and birth of Jesus is documented, he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God and the Virgin Mary without a human father.

Even if you don't believe the Gospels, there are no other credible historical accounts of Jesus.

If you want to claim Jesus was REAL without any historical support that is YOUR problem I can only tell what I have found in the NT. I am not an inventor.

Now, the teachings attributed to Jesus as found in the NT are the teachings of the TRUE offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, who was tempted on the pinnacle of the Temple, instantly healed incurable sicknesses, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

You must feel that your opinion matters. Who are you trying to fool?

You don't support my position or have any historical source to contradict my view so all you can do is try to imply that what I have established is not true.

Again, your position is illogical. It must be critically important to know if Jesus did exist because if he did not then the words attributed to him were actually from someone else and may not have been said at the proposed time and would have to be assessed differently.

There are words attributed to Jesus when he was tempted by the Devil, when he instantly healed incurable diseases, when he walked on water, when he was at the trial, transfigured, was raised from the dead and ascended through the clouds. If these events never happened and Jesus did not exist then the words of Jesus are meaningless, senseless.

I have NOT dismissed Jesus. I RECOGNIZE him as a mythological figure or a literary device used by his inventors or fabricators to propagate their own personal apocalyptic doomsday message or Universal Salvation [ Catholic] themes.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition once you admit that his existence or non-existence is irrelevant and have no credible historical source for him.

Loomis

If Deuteronomy 34:9-12 was written in 450 BC then that would mean that in 450 BC someone was motivated to claim that no prophet had risen like Moses.

Right?

Well, what was their motivation? :constern01:

Sirach 46:1 is dated to 150 BC. It was originally written in Hebrew. It claims that a prophet had risen like Moses. It says the prophet was named Jesus/Joshua.

Sirach 46:1
Now Jesus/Joshua son of Nun was valiant in the wars, and was the successor of Moses in prophecies

See?

These two passages seem to contradict each other. If we reverse the chronology then the author of Deuteronomy 34:9-12 now has a motive to claim that no prophet had risen like Moses. He would be correcting the older claim in Sirach 46:1.

Right? :constern01:

This supports aa5874’s claim that the Historical Jesus is a most senseless proposition because it reduces (or even eliminates) the need for Christianity to be based on a historical person. All Christianity needs to get its balls rolling is a group of Jews who worship the Jesus/Joshua mentioned in Sirach and Deuteronomy, or even just an older tradition or body of folklore that revers or deifies Jesus/Joshua. - Maybe even without any actual church/followers/believers at all.

kcdad

Like they are using "secret language", like a coach signaling plays to his quarterback?

That they are using "on Earth as in Heaven" language to criticize an existing political/economic order?

In a "sea of troubles" one can "focus on (the teachings of) Jesus" and not drown in the hegemony of Rome?

That even the simplest water (way of life) can be turned into the richest wine by following the teachings of Jesus.

Some who has died to their faith, family and friends, by getting caught up in the Roman occupation and Hellenistic way of life can be brought to back life by listening to (the teachings of ) Jesus when he calls you to come out of the tomb.

What you read in the Gospels is a generation removed from the original teachings of a anti-imperial revolutionary. Both Jesus and John teach the same message, in the same language to a deeply religious self identified "chosen people of God", who were becoming more and more Roman and less and less Jewish at every turn.

AND THE ALONG CAME SAUL... the ultimate Roman Jew... and see what happens next. He is shocked, almost to death, by the realization of what is happening to him and his people by the Romans. He continues the teachings but with a different and decidedly Greek flavor to it.

The message although demonstrably different in its language and tone, is similar in that it is about avoiding the loss of identification as a culture and as a people and resisting the imperial economies of the world.

Boiled down, the message... the good news is this: Money is the root of all evil. One can not be a human being (a Mensch) and care about money. We exist as fully realized human beings ONLY in community with our families friends and neighbors... who are they? EVERYONE. There are no bosses, no employees, no servants no enemies, no competitors...

THIS is why the message has been adulterated with mysticism. This is why the Roman coopted it. This is why the churches today are MULTI-TRILLION dollar enterprises... This is why no one recognizes the Jesus of the Gospels anymore... he died with James and Peter in Jerusalem...

Look at the latest incarnations of this message... Karl Marx; a hero to many but the devil to Americans. Gandhi; a hero to his people, the devil to England. Martin Luther King, Jr; a hero to his followers and a danger to the military, corporations, FBI, US and the "white male christian power structure".

Ron Paul, in a lot of ways is trying to teach the same message... the supposedly "Republican-Conservative" message... and look what happened to him in the last campaign... he couldn't get any coverage, even when he was winning the primaries... Instead the party supported Romney... and other pretenders before finally backing the old guard institutional representative: McCain.

aa5874

In the NT, Jesus did NOT say anything negative or evil about the Roman system, or the Emperors, the GODS of the Roman Empire. But Jesus did curse the Jews and called them vipers and of their father the devil.

This is Jesus on paying tribute to the Caesars.

Mark 12.17 And this is Jesus on the Pharisees and the Jews.

John 8.44Mt 23:33 - Jesus seemed to be pro-Roman and anti-Jewish.

Saul/Paul is shocked by the Romans??? No way!

Look at Romans 13.

13:1-6 - And this is Paul on the Jews in 1 Thessalonians 2.14-17.

Paul is shocked by the Jews, they are NOW PERSECUTING he who ONCE persecuted them.

Paul's message appears anti-Jewish and pro-Roman.

And we will learn from Josephus and Philo that the Jews were anti-Roman. The CAESARS of Rome were regarded as Gods and the Jews were the only nation on the face of the earth that would not deify them.

The Jews would rather die than worship a man or his effigy.

This is Josephus on the Jews when Pilate brought effigies into Jerusalem.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.1 See http://wesley.nnu.edu

This is Philo on the Jews on the deified Gaius. See http://www.earlyjewishwrirtings.com

Embassy to Gaius XXXV The Jews would rather DIE than worship a man as a God.

Jesus and Paul did not say a NEGATIVE word about the GODS OF ROME.

Jesus and Paul were supposedly living when the Jews placed their bare necks to be slaughtered and when Gaius wrote that the Jews did not deify him.

Jesus and Paul did not write about the heroic Jews who stood up to the GODS OF ROME. Jesus said the Jews of his generation were VIPERS and of their father the Devil.

Jesus was the new ROMAN mythological God. That is the message in the NT and Church writings.