Rational BAC

Well---

I haven't read through all the previous threads on this subject. (admittedly my old eyes tire easily)---------but it does seem to be a very lively and unsettled debate on the subject. Not a slam dunk for either side as far as I have been able to tell so far.

Am surprised that (since I just picked Alexander the Great off the top of my head)-------his authenticity as a historical being is also much questioned. Much of the history of Alexander is also myth and was also written down long after the fact---similarities to Jesus.


So ---so far I have learned something. No matter how many times I hear on this forum that there is no proof of a historical Jesus. -------I will no longer accept that unquestioningly as I have before.

Definitely the subject is open to debate.


Will keep on reading those older threads to see what else I can learn on this subject. I do thank you all for such an excellent forum.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


PS---------Which is correct ?--(I am an old language major so am interested in trivialities like this)-

-1--a historical Jesus or 2--an historical Jesus? I guess it depends on whether you sound the "h" or not. I would pick a historical Jesus because I have never said -----'istory and I think almost no one has ever done that except for that poor cockney girl in "My Fair Lady".

But I will defer to historians on this subject, since that must be a common problem for them.

Which is it? ---------a historical Jesus---or------an historical Jesus?

Toto

I don't think you actually read the previous threads. (The first one turned into another debate, so you only need the first few pages.)

No one has challenged the authenticity of Alexander the Great as a historical personage. There is clear evidence of his existence from contemporary accounts (not a generation later), and from his followers and opponents. There are physical descriptions of him and his family and associates. The tomb of his father, Philip of Macedon, has been discovered (the location of Alexander's tomb is unknown.)

There is none of this for the hypothetical Jesus. This does not prove that Jesus existed, but it makes the assertion that he existed very shakey.

Rational BAC

You are correct. I only read the first 3 pages and then had a dental appointment. And again, my eyes tire quickly, so I have to take many breaks from the 'puter in any case.

But I was definitely surprised by the first 3 pages as to how much of a controversy it was.

Rational BAC

Up to the 5th page so far and no slam dunk victory for anyone so far.

The idea that Jesus was or was not a historical person is definitely up for grabs.

So far no reason to any longer unquestioningly accept the proposition that Jesus was not a historical figure.


As is stated so many times and so incorrectly on this forum as if it was the "Gawd's Truth".


Sorry guys---------all I have learned so far is that this is most definitely an open subject.

Opera Nut---You should read this stuff. After you have done so I don't think you will be so adamant in dismissing Jesus offhand as having no historical basis.

Volker.Doormann

Answers, answers, answers - and no effect.

Sometimes if there is no satisfying answer, it helps to try a new path. Relax and listen:

"The philosophers from whom You speak have rotted for a long time, even if their teaching have remained as an expression of their time to us. What is to be known, is timeless. If the responsible of their time do justice, they are guides and blessings for their people; if not, they remain driven who keep open progress and completion of the people. In vain every attempt to change people and people by exterior reforms. Tame therefore your vanity, allow to drive yours negligently knowledge! Give up the carried of the beautiful programs which do not help the people! The people are renewed from themselves if it freely governs himself. The person refined to themselves by itself: by the striving inherent to him for selfrealization. All rest one is vainly and uselessly. Your way arises from the temporality and ends in her. My way leads from the timeless to the eternal: to the fulfillment of the sense of the life. Your way is the way of the bustle. My way is the way of 'do-nothing' with which nothing remains undone: the way of the silence and peace from which the right motion arises."

Lao=Tzu, the wise philosopher from China has spoken this to Confucius about 500 BCE. One can learn, that it senseless to search for any historic 'truth'. It does not change that, what is to be known. What is to be known? Ask your self. What is the kernel question?

There are Gospels. A figure speaks. The words spoken are present. Now.

There is an about 5000 year old myth from Egypt about Osiris and Isis. Parts of this myth are components of the canonical Gospel's in several cases (Arising from death. La_zarus = El_Asar = God Osiris). Additionally to that the theme of Passover - 'Arising of the Soul ('IsraEL') out of the dead / dying fleshly body ('Egypt'), which is the real bondage to the soul' - is dramatized as parable in the canonical gospels. A Gospel is a form of literature, not a report of a historian. These parables are parables in the same strategy as the parables in the Gospels, which are never decoded, but forgotten from Christianity.

One can find near to 47 parables of the canonical Gospels also in the Gospel of Thomas, without these poor Hollywood story board implemented. Some 112 Sayings are reality. Written from a person. Remembering Lao=Tzu, one can hear in each present , what is to be known.

Like the Exodus is a parable about the arising of the soul from the dying body - symbolized with the four phases of the moon - Passover is exact in the night on full moon after spring equinox - were the waning moon symbols the fleshly life, that dies- the death of the figure Jesus is - same time as the Jewish Passover - the very same symbol, where a soul gets free from the fleshly body back home to the spiritual world.

History is a science of phantoms and death objects. I think it is that, what can be learned and what then is knowledge, which has a meaning, whether there was a historic person that has a relation to the Gospel text or not. It's history. 'What is to be known, is timeless.' says Lao=Tzu, and only this knowlegde counts, not a rotted historic Jesus.

Volker

Magus55

There is just as much evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, as there is for Alexander.

What do you consider contemporary records? A week after the event? A year? Alot of the NT was written before 60 A.D ( Paul for example, died in 64 - so his writings were most likely well before that and He was originall hostile towards the idea of Jesus and Christians). The Gospels were written no later than 70 A.D. Considering the lack of any printing press or large scale literacy and education for that matter, I wouldn't expect the writings to come out in a year after the event. Add to that, the writers of the Bible were being persecuted and risked death for treason by spreading Jesus' word, I doubt it was easy for them to hurry and write the scriptures claiming that the man Rome just crucifed is the Son of God. The writings were still written by eyewitnesses, many probably only a couple decades at the most after Jesus died. In the 1st Century, i consider 10-30 years to be contemporary. The scripture was not written a generation later ( the majority anyway), it was written in the same generation that the events happened.

How does the tomb of Philip of Macedon provide any evidence? There are tons of archaeological findings the prove the reliability of the Bible. The pool of Bethesda where Jesus cured people. The tomb of the high priest Caiaphas ( recorded in John), and a monument built by Ceasar Augustus as just a few examples ( see many more at links below).

The tombs of the Patriarchs, David and Solomon, and even Jesus' supposed burial tomb have been found by Archaeologists.

We also have accounts of the existence of Jesus from Thallus, Pliny the younger, Josephus, Seutonius, the Talmud, and Lucian.

And here are a bunch of other archaeological findings verifying the reliability of the Bible and Jesus.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a005.html


And here are other extra-biblical accounts of events in the Bible.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html


There is just as much evidence for Jesus and the Bible, as there is for Alexander. To dismiss Jesus as a historical figure is quite a stretch. Very few credible historians would ever doubt Jesus of Nazareth's existence. If you dismiss the historical existence of Jesus, we might as well say Alexander, Napolean, Columbus, Cleopatra etc were all myths as well, because Jesus has just as much evidence and reliability as any of those do. I think its just so easy for atheists to dismiss Jesus of Nazareth existing, and no other historical figure because of who He claimed to be. Had Jesus never claimed to be divine and the Messiah, you would have absolutely no problem accepting Him as a historical figure.

Asha'man

Right on schedule, Magus55 shows up to deliver the uninformed party line.
This is utterly false, which is why this whole controversy exists. Why don’t you take another look at the threads posted at the beginning?

Actually, Paul says nothing about a historical Jesus. The biggest argument in favor of the mythical Jesus is all about exactly what Paul fails to mention. In fact, just about the only thing that Paul does mention is that Jesus died and came back. Paul seems utterly ignorant about the life of a preacher in and around Jerusalem. He doesn’t quote anything Jesus taught, doesn’t mention family, locations, events. If you read Paul without reading the Gospels, you would know nothing about the life of Jesus on earth.

No, the scholarly consensus is that the gospels were written no earlier than 70, and perhaps several decades later. This has been repeated time and again in this forum, haven’t you been paying attention?

You have accounts of the existence of the story of Jesus, nothing else. And it’s pretty damn clear that Josephus was edited by a Christian, so it can’t be trusted. The story in the Talmud is completely different from the gospels, and I don't think you want to accept what it says as the reliable truth.

Nope, not a one. There are plenty of findings that verify that the locations mentioned in the Bible may have existed, but nothing that verifies the events whatsoever. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that directly contradicts the reliability of the Bible.

We already addressed this, and you are simply wrong. You can’t win this debate by making blind assertions, especially when they have already been proved incorrect. The actual evidence for Jesus is extremely scant, and very much disputed. Anyone who has an unbiased opinion will admit this, as do many Christian scholars with an open mind.

Personally, I do think that there was a preacher/troublemaker named Jesus. However, I hold that belief with very little conviction, partly because the actual evidence is so damn pitiful. The question is really one of the strength of the alternative explanation, which is making more sense the more I look at it.

Mageth

There is just as much evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, as there is for Alexander.

Hmm. Alexander also claimed to be a god. His mother told him that a serpent had impregnated her rather then his father. There are other myths about Alexander. Do you believe Alexander was a god, since he claimed to be, and if no, why not?

Anyway, coins and other contemporary images of Alexander pretty much establish his existence.

Asha'man

Right. But at the same time, it is clear that the evidence in favor of a historical Jesus is very light, and often disputed.

Clearly, the mythical position should not be accepted unquestionably, and anyone who says it should be is not being objective. I think the best, and most honest, position is to admit the simple truth: the evidence is weak for either case. Proof is probably never going to be achieved, not with 2,000 years to destroy all the evidence.

The question is one of plausibility and probability. I think both positions are plausible. There may have been a real person named Jesus, there may not. I don’t know which one is more probable, so I haven’t changed my position yet.

However, to a large extent, it doesn’t matter for the purpose of theism. What is perfectly clear is that the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels is not historical. Even if there was a real Jesus, I’m confident that his life had little resemblance to the fairy tale portrayed in the gospels. No matter how the story began, it has been stretched and elaborated and expanded until it has almost no connection with the truth.

But that is still true: there is no proof. There is only disputed evidence. That evidence can be explained as coming from a non-historical Jesus. Therefore, there is no proof, and not even a strong reason to believe that there was a historical Jesus.

Radcliffe Emerson

If Paul invented Christianity and had followers write stuff to support his claims, that would explain two different authors inventing a brother.
And I think Paul made up Jesus and invented the religion, either working for the Romans to try to de-convert Jews, or for himself to make a living sponging off of followers.