I'm inclined to accept that a man who may have been a teacher or Rabbi named Jesus (or whatever the Hebrew equivalent is) lived around the time Jesus of the Bible did. I have no confidence, however, that the Bible can be trusted as any sort of accurate portrayal of his life, or what he supposedly said or did. We already know the inclination of believers to embellish the attributes of their heroes from many different cultures. We also know from the transformation of Joseph Smith from the character he was to the pristine and near-divine character he has been made out to be. No doubt, the same sorts of transformations occurred with Jesus of the Bible.
The article is decent, but there are still some inaccuracies in the last point.
First, the Synoptic Gospels are Mark, Matthew, and Luke--not John. The first three were drawn from common source material, with Matthew and Luke relying on an as-yet-unknown additional source called "Q" (from German "Quelle" meaning source or origin).
Second, no serious scholars think that the canonic Gospels were "written by four of Christ's disciples in the decades after his crucifixion." It's pretty clear they are not primary sources, and the earliest of the four, Mark, is thought to have been composed around 70 CE, with Matthew and Luke appearing at the end of the first century and John sometime after the turn of the century--removed by nearly a hundred years from the events they purport to describe, and written by unknown authors with agendas for specific audiences.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2016 08:02PM by Anziano Young.
It is interesting to me that almost all proof the bible is truthful is the bible. I do not believe there was really a Jesus. What (?) you may say. No expert here but the Egyptians had a religion that I believe the Romans used as a basis for the Christian religion. Makes way more sense to me.
Since the Romans persecuted Christians until the time of Constantine, that seems highly unlikely. Why on earth would they create a religion and then persecute its followers?
bona dea unregistered Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since the Romans persecuted Christians until the > time of Constantine, that seems highly unlikely. > Why on earth would they create a religion and then > persecute its followers?
Perhaps the stories about persecuting Christians is as fake as Joseph Smith reading gold plates.
FYI ----- Based on 'channeled and medium' sources.
A preacher, who the Jesus myth was based on, did exist. I can't remember what his name was but not Jesus.
He was 'enlightened' through 'spiritual experiences' about the after life and reincarnation and that is what he taught along with living positive lives to prepare for the after life and future incarnations.
He is not happy that people turned his life and teachings into what is currently in the bible.
spiritist Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FYI ----- Based on 'channeled and medium' sources. > > A preacher, who the Jesus myth was based on, did > exist. I can't remember what his name was but not > Jesus.
Are you thinking of Apollonius of Tyana? He lived about the same time as Jesus was said to live, did miracles, taught righteousness, etc. etc.
From the Wikipedia article:
"Even before he was born, it was known that he would be someone special. A supernatural being informed his mother the child she was to conceive would not be a mere mortal but would be divine. He was born miraculously, and he became an unusually precocious young man. As an adult he left home and went on an itinerant preaching ministry, urging his listeners to live, not for the material things of this world, but for what is spiritual. He gathered a number of disciples around him, who became convinced that his teachings were divinely inspired, in no small part because he himself was divine. He proved it to them by doing many miracles, healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead. But at the end of his life he roused opposition, and his enemies delivered him over to the Roman authorities for judgment. Still, after he left this world, he returned to meet his followers in order to convince them that he was not really dead but lived on in the heavenly realm. Later some of his followers wrote books about him"
I only went to the 2 sources (one medium and one channel) I felt 'guided' to when I initially was interested about a year ago.
Going back now I really enjoyed what both but mainly the channel had to say and have found more to study but they were both totally 'doctrinally consistent', which is very much against the Bible or Christian doctrine. Of course, they were both 100% in line with what I 'believe' based on my experiences.
Neither were asked or gave Jesus name when on the earth. So I am not sure how I got the impression it was something else. But I would not be sure he went by Jesus either. Neither brought it up.
1) there was a person called Jesus (it's just latinized 'Yeshuah', which would have been a common name)
2) He may have been a preacher - there is some evidence that Jerusalem, early AD's (a city, in a land, under foreign occupation) would have been full of preachers of one ilk or another
3) He may have been crucified - crucifixion of one method or another was practised by the Romans
all the rest is froth, added to create a myth and a religion
Unlike 'spiritist', I have no evidence for my ideas..... Its just seems logical based on the known facts and - yah know - reality
I am quite willing to change my thinking if anyone has any proper evidence, proof, whatever
Notice the article in the OP's post starts out saying these scholars *believe* there was an historical Jesus...
Which is of course no more to the point of establishing fact than mormons believing Joe had gold plates.
Evidence can't establish an historical Jesus. So there's no reason to assume there was one. Yeah, it's that simple.
That evidence can't establish there was one doesn't mean there WASN'T one (or some guy or group of guys who were the basis of the myths). There could have been. It just can't be shown there was one, who it was, or anything about him (or them).
Yeah, people just *hate* admitting we don't know. Oh, well. We don't. I don't really care that we don't -- the supposed "teachings" of this supposed god-man-savior-thing are pretty lousy and stupid anyway. Whether a real one existed or not.
Since there is no evidence to prove the existence of Jesus and all they are left with is belief, the best way they have found in their minds to make the most of their belief is to point to the "learned experts" who believe it. This implies the belief has more validity because this is a scholar who believes it.
Nice trick, will fool those who already believe. Still no evidence.
I pretty much liken the historicity of Jesus with the legends of King Arthur and Robin Hood.
In the case of both English legends, it is generally accepted that both men were amalgams of various men who actually existed over a span of decades or generations, and whose individual exploits had been embellished and attached to a single personage who would come to represent the resulting legend.
Maybe slightly off topic, but the Loch Ness Monster is real too.
We even have a photo to prove it. The monster has not yet appeared on toast. Or if he has, it was to the ignorant who were not aware of the great miracle that had occurred before their very eyes.
For the upteenth time, scholars are not claiming Jesus was divine, just that he existed. As for the Loch Ness Monster, maybe it exists, maybe not. The issue is open to debate at this time
I have given sources. Try reading some of the scholars you summarily dismiss. By the way, when was the last time any of you took a history class on the ancient world, Jesus early Christianity or read a book on it written by an actual authority.
It's one thing when a "scholar" has some evidence to back them up. There is no actual and real evidence (that anyone knows about) that provides any proof of Christ's real and actual existence. Everything, all of it, is hearsay and circumstantial.
So far, all I've ever seen is "He's really smart and he really believes! So it must be true." With no actual evidence of his existence. It's all just claims by supposedly smart people. That is like saying the BOM is true because there are witnesses, they even claim to have seen it and were actually contemporaries of Joseph Smith, so really they are better off.
Just because someone's a scholar doesn't mean that their beliefs are actually proof of anything. That's all they've got are beliefs.
Keep in mind that I'm totally fine with them believing, that's all well and good, but their belief isn't evidence of anything.
Maybe there's evidence out there and it just hasn't been found, but I have yet to see anything more convincing than "There may have been a teacher or teacher who was somewhat radical..." And honestly, there probably was, there usually is, but that doesn't make "him" Jesus Christ any more than if years from now, someone writes a book about a mythical and totally awesome software engineer who lived around the early 2000's is real because I exist.