If you have STRONG feelings about whether Yeshua was a real person or not then do NOT follow this link. If, however you find the process intensely interesting and want to see two heavyweights duke it out... DO go here:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794#22

Was Jesus and amalgam of previous mythologies and a myth? Or, was Jesus an actual historical figure? The case is blurrier than some would choose to believe.

HH =)

Any legitimate records of Jesus and what he did from the time he was actually supposed to be alive?

No Holy Bible stuff, as far as I have read. All the accounts are from years later.

How about the Tax that had Mary & Joe go to the stable to wait for the Three Wise Guys to deliver Pizza and Calamari? Any record of the Romans doing that?

The case is only blurry if you don't have your religious colored glasses on.

I vote for an actual person about whom a LOT was made up — most significantly, the deity stuff and the resurrection.

A good book on this subject is Zealot, the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth.

I agree. The author stated that what Jesus was doing was an accepted "job" at the time -- preacher/healer. In an age without medical science, that was the best that people could do to address severe ailments. The author named a number of other well-known healers of the time -- Jesus was just one of many, and while he was well-regarded, so were others.

Yes, a lot of myths were laid on top of his story. But IMO there is no reason to believe that he wasn't a real person.

I was rather unimpressed with Zealot.

He barely acknowledges the difficulties of the source material. And then tries to parse finely the English words of Jesus as though they were exact.

The best part of the work was placing Jesus in a more Roman context than only Jewish.

Azlan has no professional historical writing or analysis to his name. Zealot was just pop history.

I have a vague memory of someone telling me that they knew someone whose great uncle had a friend whose mother went to school with a guy who knew a guy who had seen a granite carving of a page from the Nazareth High School yearbook, Class of AD 33, showing Jesus, son of Joseph, voted most likely to piss off the Pharisees.


I'd swear to this on a mile-high stack of bibles.

Your knowledge of Christianity is remarkable. I know no one who is more bibulous.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2021 06:26PM by Lot's Wife.

No, I blew it. It should have been Nazareth High, Class of AD 18...

I'm a failure as a scholar.

Yeah, I was going to say that you were trying to tell us that Jesus didn't graduate high school until age 33?

Although that might explain why the leaders of his church have such a difficult time getting things figured out.

attended Gethsemane Community College where he majored in Wine Chemistry and was a member of the track team, where he specialized in the long distance cross carry.

LOL!

Don't forget he invented surfing, or as they called it then, walking on water. That was just before he started the embalming business and became so good at it people said it looked like he had brought the dead back to life!

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't forget he invented surfing, or as they
> called it then, walking on water.

Brilliant.

I was just thinking about this. The modern era is different from the pre-enlightenment world and its notion of ‘truth’. Religious truths are conveyed in stories. I think that was long understood. The pied piper and the naked emperor never existed either, but their stories illustrate important truths. They do so better than any historical example because the story is specifically tailored to the message.

Holy books were the first virtual reality environments. They are a place to test “what if” scenarios in thought experiments. You could do this yourself, but it would take longer than one lifetime so having scriptural wisdom is more practical. With that view, the words of an archetypal Jesus are true even though they are made up.

When people claim that the stories are true in a factual sense, which is fundamentalism, it means that they are only understanding on a superficial level. When some simpleton claims that he saw God and Jesus in the flesh, he’s taking tremendous liberties at best.

It is my opinion that the man Jesus actually existed.
He was pursued by the Jewish hierarchy because he was preaching a doctrne contrary to the current dogma.
He was tried under Roman law and executed.
EVERYTHING else is legend and hearsay
I don't care what Dan Brown says

I guess my stance will always be to wonder why Jesus gets a pass, when other characters, like Noah, are recognized as a Jewish spin placed on an older myth.

I see him as being no different than, say, Hercules.

The Jesus who works as a carpenter for my friends construction company is real. Other than that??

Well, and I once ate at a Mexican Restaurant in Santa Paula CA where the menu board listed Jesus' favorites! Turns out Jesus was the cook.

Shinehah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Jesus who works as a carpenter for my friends
> construction company is real. Other than that??
>
> Well, and I once ate at a Mexican Restaurant in
> Santa Paula CA where the menu board listed Jesus'
> favorites! Turns out Jesus was the cook.

From a native Angelino:

:D

EDITED TO ADD: My family and I moved to Woodland Hills when I was maybe four or five, and at that time, Woodland Hills (and most of the West Valley) was still scarcely populated "pioneer" territory. Although twenty or thirty years earlier there had been a small influx of new residents (Woodland Hills itself--then named "Girard"--was begun as a knowingly fraudulent real estate scheme by a man named Victor Girard), it was only after WWII that the population began to grow. My family's part of the southwestern Valley was exceedingly monochromatic, and entirely English speaking, so it wasn't until I entered junior high that I began interacting with kids who WEREN'T "exactly like me." In other words: I didn't know probably even a single word in Spanish at that time, let alone how to pronounce Spanish correctly.

One day I was asked by one of my teachers to stay after school for a few minutes and help him with some records he had to complete and turn in that afternoon. My job was to read names off a list, and as I did, he would make needed notations on the papers he was working on.

I came to someone whose first name was "Jesus," and being absolutely totally non-Spanish-speaking at that time, I said: "JEE-sus." He looked at me with total shock, and started yelling at me that I was NEVER to pronounce that name, in THAT way, EVER AGAIN!!! He told me I was being disrespectful to that student (who was not anywhere near either of us; school was already out for the day), and I should be ashamed of myself.

I've obviously never forgotten that incident, and I DID learn now to pronounce Jesus-as-a-name properly [hay-SUS!], and I still think that the outright yelling at me was over-the-top since, until that moment, I never knew there WAS another way to pronounce that name.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2021 03:17PM by Tevai.

No evidence.

When I was going through my conversion to Judaism classes at the University of Judaism (now: American Jewish University), just about all of my classmates had been raised Christian. (I was the outlier: I had been raised mostly Hindu/Vedanta.)

As the result of many sincere questions about the historicity of Jesus asked, by our fellow classmates who had been raised Christians, of our Jewish history teacher, here is what Rabbi Vorspan said:

During that general time period (basically: the first century or two of the Common Era), in that part of the world, there were many itinerant "preachers" [for want of a better word] who traveled constantly, from place to place to place, preaching their own individual perspectives on Judaism/Jewishly-descended philosophies (etc.).

The probable difference between the person we today commonly call "Jesus," and the other itinerant "preachers" who were doing the "same" thing during that general time period, was that what Jesus taught caught the attention of [who we now call] Paul, who then took on the task of promoting Jesus's teachings as Paul's mission in life. In entertainment industry terms (because many of us in our conversion class were part of the industry in some way), Paul happened on to a great story and he very successfully ran with it.

Rabbi Vorspan said that this had, over the centuries, become the generally accepted understanding among Jewish academics and rabbis: that the single person we today refer to as "Jesus" may have been a conflation of several different men who were all, during the same general time period, doing the "same" thing in the "same" general area.

From a Jewish standpoint, this understanding makes a great deal of sense, because itinerant Jewish "preachers" (using the Christian term) have traveled over much of the world in the past couple of thousand years (think: the span of Eurasia), so Jews living today are comfortably familiar with the concept.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2021 03:01AM by Tevai.

This story makes a lot of sense to non-Jewish historians as well.

Jesuses were a dime a dozen two millennia ago; in fact they remain common today. Even RfM has a Jesus who thinks he is divine (though I reckon he simply takes the excited utterances of those Mia-Maids and Laurels too literally).

I'd add that peripatetic preachers and teachers were a common part of the US experience until the 20th century. Traveling preachers combed the frontier regions of JS's youth and, if memory serves, even ventured as far as Laura Ingalls Wilder's environs back in the day. This rural Christianity was not as staid and conservative as that of the eastern cities and it did have certain common features wherever one encountered it, so you could speak of a frontier Christianity. It seems plausible that Jesus was like one of those 19th century itinerant preachers except that his name came to be associated with the nascent frontier faith that would become Christianity.

For my money, furthermore, Paul was more responsible for Christianity than the Galilean preacher/s had been. He is the one who formalized the religion--changing fundamental elements of the original gospel, writing far more of the New Testament than Jesus's words comprise, cracking the whip at narrow-minded Jewish apostles and disciples, and transforming it from an obscure Jewish sect into a transnational faith, I therefore think that Kahlil Gibran and Nikos Kazantzakis, both believers, strike more or less the right balance; and that is true of many of the modern historians of Christianity too.

So yeah, I think what Vorspan explained is quite sensible.

I agree, and I think this is very similar to what I was saying above -- Jesus was one of many. Reza Aslan also names a number of other preachers/healers who were active at the time, i.e. Honi the Circle-Drawer, Abba Hilqiah, Hanan the Hidden, Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, Apollonius of Tyana, etc. There were also traveling exorcists (i.e. Eleazar, Rabbi Simon ben Yohai,) because the people believed back then that illness and afflictions were the result of demons. I happen to think that there was enough evidence to say that Jesus was a distinct individual, but he was hardly unique. And it is easy to see how the stories of his healings could have been embellished.

I also agree that Christianity is at least as much about Paul as about Jesus, if not moreso.

And yes, the U.S. had it's own tradition of itinerant preachers. My paternal great-grandparents, who were living in rural Maine, had all of their children baptized on the same date by a circuit preacher.

Without seeing this posted article, but going off of the many things I have read, I believe that there are two likely explanations for the Jesus character. First is that there was indeed some a radical rabbi or some other type of preacher, who did gather a bit of a following, and in the several decades between his death and the first written writings about him (the earliest Biblical writings mentioning Jesus came at the earliest about 60 to 70 years after he supposedly died), the stories about him became greatly exaggerated. Sort of like a fishing story where the fish gets bigger with every telling, or a several decades long game of telephone. The second explanation is that there was no one person, but that several stories and myths became attached to a fictional character who was used as a source of inspiration. For lack of a better analogy, sort of like a Robin Hood character.

I found This thread of many years ago that might be of interest.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1442826,1443278#msg-1443278

I'm not sure what happened to Henry Bemis.

Henry is alive and well, over on subreddit /exmormon

Along with Gatorfan, who may have finally succumbed to the vagaries of old age . . .

So... you just happened across an exmoBB post from 2014 from Bemis?? MMm Hmmm. Hello Bemis. Sockpuppet much?

HH =)

I lean more mythicist than historic, but I'm not hardcore.

I find the foundational documents problematic and late; their content incompatible with what is claimed of them. I think the haggadic midrash interpretation of the gospels as symbol and metaphor for liturgy rather than history makes the most sense of them and their likely application. And this gives easy rise to the mishmash interpretations of Christianity, the ease with which Paul creates his own accepted spin.

This doesn't require a human Jesus, but doesn't preclude one.

Jesus is pretend

Prolly.

Thomas Sheehan, author of The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God became Christianity.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/historical-jesus/id384233911

This was the first class I took at Stanford's Continuing Studies, "The Historical Jesus," taught by Thomas Sheehan. Years ago.

A quick search found the class offered for free on iTunes. Sheehan is a great teacher. As far as I know, the book is still out of print, but I managed to find a used copy.

Early in the class he talked about pseudepigrapha using the Book of Daniel as an example. Another example of pseudepigrapha is The Book of Mormon. We got to attend 2 days of lectures by John Dominic Crossan, who has written books on the topic. I also read some of Ehrman's books.

I was long out of the church by then, but found these to be fascinating classes and books.

Seems like a good time to reread these books and my class notes, as soon as I finish reading books about powerful people who have taken over the evangelicals. I'm about to begin on Jesus and John Wayne.

I don't know if Sheehan and Crossan are now dated. Anyone looked at them recently?

Your class sounds fascinating. When I took, "Jesus and the New Testament" in college, one of our books was JDC's "The Dark Interval: A Theology of Story". I loved it! It was my favorite book from that class. It would have been amazing to see JDC lecture.

From a book description --

"The Dark Interval identifies five kinds of stories: Story establishes world in myth, defends established world in apologue, discusses and describes world in action, attacks world in satire, and subverts world in parable. The author focuses on the provocative theory that the parable is a narrative genre that undercuts the comfortable and safe constructs we place upon our world. Parables thus shatter the shelter we build for ourselves in myths and make way for transcendence. This durable book has had a tremendous impact on parable theory and narrative studies."

https://www.westarinstitute.org/store/the-dark-interval/

Thanks for the link!

HH =)

Jesus is santa claus for grownups.

Tonight at 11:00 – Mormon Jesus as "Bad Santa"

Watch as Bad Santa…

…torches houses that had no cookies by the fireplace

…breaks Rudolph's nose and humps Vixen

…puts his elves to the rack for failing to meet their toy quotas

…uses the Arctic Ocean to drown the Ten Tribes hiding up by the North Pole

"On Matthew, on Judas, on Simon bar Jonah ...!"

On the other hand Santa doesn't kick your ass and send you to hell for coveting your neighbor's ox. So IMHO Jesus is more of a Santa-Krampus combo.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesus is santa claus for grownups.

But even the myth of Santa Claus originated from a real person, St Nicklaus who was a real person.

I say that all the time. He knows when you are sleeping. He knows when you're awake. He knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake.

Hey let's all vote on whether gravity exists!

Or whether HIV is the cause of AIDS.

There's about as much "controversy" among serious scholars for the historical existence of Jesus.

You're welcome to debate what he was, what he meant, etc.

Historicity, no real debate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Yes. Wikipedia would have the final word on this. Really. I swear. Like, for sure. Trust me on this . . .

And don't worry. He'll be back any day now.

Or... perhaps you could read the link in my OP. But don't bother looking at information. YOU KNOW the answer. Therefore, it must be correct. Scoff scoff.


HH =)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Feel free to post research on the accuracy of richardcarrier.info

First off Jesus of Nazareth was not a carpenter.
According to a very contraversial author who claimed to have uncovered a written history of Jesus high in the Hymalaya mountains, Nicolas Notavich, he spent his formative years studying among the priests there. Now!!!! There are many who believe and many who do not believe this. But contrary to claims Notavichs story was N O T disproved although heavily challenged.
Ther are those that claim others actually saw the alleged manuscript and those that claim it did not exist.
I am gullible so I am going to accept it.
My challenge to all is if you want to find out
FIRST READ THE BOOK!! Then think it over and decide.
Do not let anybody else make the decision for you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2021 03:30PM by thedesertrat1.

Also read Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal by Christopher Moore.

Some say it is fiction but keep an open mind that this accounts for what happened to between the manger and the Sermon on the Mount. Think it over because Biff wouldn't lie.

https://www.amazon.com/Lamb-Gospel-According-Christs-Childhood/dp/0380813815

Perhaps I am looking at this incorrectly. The life and teachings of Jesus, if he was real, is ambiguous at best. Sayings attributed to him were written decades after his death. He does fit a pattern of the itinerant preachers of his time. It would be easy for the gospel writers to embellish events in their attempt to fulfill Old Testament prophecies as there were few folks, if any, still alive to corroborate those events. Paul never met Jesus, so I believe his writings can be ignored in regards to proving that Jesus existed. Paul's writings were critical to the formation of churches however. So we are left with mere paragraphs to document the most important person to have ever lived. It bothers me as is the best God can do? So it does not matter to me if Jesus was real or not. The stories are not believable, water to wine, walking on water, etc. The Bible is an important document in regards to Western culture and should be studied. Myths are a significant part of all of our lives. I don't remember who said this: If the Bible is read to you, you are a Christian. If you study the Bible, you become an atheist.

Eric K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If
> the Bible is read to you, you are a Christian. If
> you study the Bible, you become an atheist.

Excellent.

Just an FYI, but I would not trust what Richard Carrier says. He simply is not a reliable person and does not have integrity. If you are interested in good scholarship, go to other sources.

You might want to read the link provided in the OP.

HH =)

Ad hominem. It doesn't matter whether you like him or find his behavior offensive. Those have nothing to do with the arguments he presents. You must address the argument, not the person.

Those things will get him disinvited from conventions and symposia though.

One of the best scholars of the New Testament is a former True Believer named Bart Ehrman. He is honest with himself, and honest with others. His scholarship is so good that the Evangelical Mega Church bunch has had to come up with a Project (The Ehrman Project) to try and counter him, due to loss of membership (people citing they had read his books). This is the Evangelical equivalent of FARMS.

I would trust his scholarship. He wanted to know for himself, so he studied the topic, and the possibilities, and wrote a book “Did Jesus Exist?”
https://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443

He concluded that Jesus was indeed a real person, just not the mythologized version that was later elevated to the status of God.

LeftTheMorg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of the best scholars of the New Testament is a
> former True Believer named Bart Ehrman. He is
> honest with himself, and honest with others. His
> scholarship is so good that the Evangelical Mega
> Church bunch has had to come up with a Project
> (The Ehrman Project) to try and counter him, due
> to loss of membership (people citing they had read
> his books). This is the Evangelical equivalent of
> FARMS.
>
> I would trust his scholarship. He wanted to know
> for himself, so he studied the topic, and the
> possibilities, and wrote a book “Did Jesus
> Exist?”
> https://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-
> Argument/dp/0062206443
>
> He concluded that Jesus was indeed a real person,
> just not the mythologized version that was later
> elevated to the status of God.
Yes at the council of Nicea if my memory serves me corredtly

Again... you might just want to have a glance at the LINK in my OP. Just a reference there.


HH =)

I'm not sure how one could ever disprove the notion that Jesus was a real person. In Palestine two millennia ago there were as many Jesuses as there are today in California's Central Valley. There were surely itinerant rabbis by that name, so what exactly are we to disprove--that there was a Jesus? That there were numerous Jesuses? That some Jesus(es) taught religious truths that aligned fairly closely with Essene doctrine?

I think the answer to each of those questions is an unqualified yes. It's almost beyond dispute. It is likewise highly probable that one or more of those Jesuses taught things that one way or another found their way into the NT. How can one disprove that highly likely scenario?

Logic tells us that the resurrection was nonsense, but as for the existence of a rabbi named Jesus some of whose teachings found their way into the NT, the probability of that being accurate must be 90% or so. It's equally likely, however, that there is a Catholic Jesus or Jose in the orange fields of California or Florida who teaches that people should rise above racial and cultural prejudices and love others as themselves. A religion or political philosophy could arise around those ideas too.

Maybe one day people will argue over whether Jose was an actual person or the symbolic embodiment of ideas that were current in his American Galilee.

You must acknowledge some amount of motivated reasoning to Ehrman though. His position and income are in part because of his stance and derived prestige on the issue.

"Apophenia: In psychology, the perception of connections and meaningfulness in unrelated things. Apophenia can be a normal phenomenon or an abnormal one, as in paranoid schizophrenia when the patient sees ominous patterns where there are none

Seeing what isn't here may be helped by getting helped early.

I like what Paul Toscano said about Jesus —-If He wasn’t God, He should have been.