lukethethird
unknown member
Stripping down the story doesn't make it historical, try as you might.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Jesus Real?
- Thread starter Jesus from the Ghetto
- Start date
lukethethird
unknown member
No, other way around, he thinks mythical is more likely.
lukethethird
unknown member
Richard Carrier says otherwise.
Born
Richard Cevantis Carrier
December 1, 1969 (age 49)
Nationality American
Education B.A. (History), M.A. (Ancient history), M.Phil. (Ancient history), Ph.D. (Ancient history)[1]
Alma mater University of California, Berkeley, Columbia University[1]
Celestial Jesus[edit]
Carrier asserts that originally "Jesus was the name of a celestial being, subordinate to God, with whom some people hallucinated conversations"[61]and "The Gospel began as a mythic allegory about the celestial Jesus, set on earth, as most myths then were"[61]. Stories were created that placed Jesus on Earth, in context with historical figures and places. Eventually people began to believe that these allegorical stories were real.[61][64] Carrier argues that Jesus was originally considered a god like any other god, and was later historicized. wiki
Last edited:
Unfortunately, though Bart Ehrman has written a number of excellent books, Did Jesus Exist? isn't one of them. His main plank is the old one, 'everyone who matters agrees', whereas they don't. Having spent not a little time looking for and at 'evidence' it's my view that it's an open question whether there was an historical Jesus or not ─ there's no clincher either way, and there's no necessity for an historical Jesus in order to account for the records etc.
The strongest argument for an HJ seems to me to be those references in the gospels that I mentioned to @lukethethird: Mark 3:31, Mark 6:3, Mark 15:40, Matthew 10:35, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast only John 19:26. They're not easy to map onto the Tanakh, so they just might originate with a real human, making the inference available that the real human was the historical Jesus.
As against that, there's only one biography of Jesus, that of Mark, from which the others are copied. There is no contemporary record of Jesus at all, whereas if the trial of Jesus was the major political crisis portrayed in the gospels it could hardly have gone unremarked. The theologian Ted Weeden instead notes 24 points of similarity between Mark's account of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem (aka Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias) in Josephus' Wars 6.5 (75 CE) , suggesting that this is Mark's source for his account, copied by the other gospel writers.
And Paul says in Philippians 2:
8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
which is a statement that Jesus was not called Jesus in his lifetime, but went by some other name.9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
And so on (eg >here< ─ try not to be put off by the occasional note of glee).
Check it out. You may find it merits further thought.
Last edited:
lukethethird
unknown member
Agreed, it's not a clincher either way. Did Jesus Exist? is not one of Ehrman's excellent books and in fact may be the final nail in the coffin of the third quest for the historical Jesus. The reviews by his peers are brutal.
Dell
Asteroid insurance?
No but it might suggest something Jesus really did or say. I.e. sermon on the mount, john the baptist, some of his disciples, the betrayer, the crucifixion, driving out money changers, etc.
It's not proof of the existence of Jesus, I draw on probabilities on such things. I think there is a logical probability he did exist than not. He was a man like us, influenced by apocalyptic Jewish teachers, later come to believe he was the messiah king of the jews, got crucified for it as treason, and some of his disciples afterwards was able to make a verbal gospel out of the experience and teachings.
Last edited:
Dell
Asteroid insurance?
I don't think his peers include Richard Carrier and the like. Ehrman also comes highly respected by atheist Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Michael Shermer who from what I've heard in lectures and debates think that Jesus is probably not a myth but an actual man. Most have no problems with if Jesus existed, but have big problems with Christianity's teachings to the general public that contradict obvious discoveries of science.
lukethethird
unknown member
I agree, Dr. Carrier is a credentialed historian. see post #63
lukethethird
unknown member
He wasn't a man like us, he made the lame walk, the blind see, He raised the dead and He rose from the dead Himself, I read the New Testament.
aurisadhibeo
Member
Nobody walked on water. Although maybe some ancient david blaine act?
aurisadhibeo
Member
I saw it on youtube... its real mate. He did this stuff. (I am hoping you are using satire in the same manner) If not lets summon Captain Disillusion.
syo
Well-Known Member
Jesus is an historical person.
GoldenThread
Member
The best way too interpret what Jesus said is to not interpret it! If Jesus said a command, then follow what the command says to do. Simple as a father telling their son to do the dishes. Not complicated, but a direct command that a child who loves their father will obey (even if they are feeling lazy).
Furthermore, ask God for His Holy spirit. He will give it to you if you ask Him to (Luke 11:9-13). The Holy spirit is important because it reminds us of everything that Jesus told us to do (John 14:26).
Yes, I do remember that story in Acts 8. What are your thoughts in regards to that?
In peace
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
None of the stories of Horus, Attis, Mithra, Krishna, or Dionysus mirrored the Jesus story prior to the introduction of the Christian story. So they are aren't prior forms from which Christianity was derived, rather they are forms that were modified to more closely mirror the Christian story.
Was this a mechanism for control? Yes, the modification of local myth was used over and over again in cultures from Ireland to South America, Africa to East Asia as a means to facilitate conversion to Christianity.
It's more than that.
In both Galatians 1:18-9 and 1 Corinthians 9:5 the “brothers of the Lord” are mentioned alongside and separate from other believers. The context clearly implies that they are blood brothers and St. Paul knew one of them, James, whom he mentions in passing. His admission of acquaintance with James in this passage doesn't even help bolster his claim to independent apostleship through "revelation", such that he seems to grudgingly admit that he did receive information about Jesus from his brother.
What's intriguing, is that Paul's audience is already familiar with James and has been under the influence of a circumcision faction dispatched by James that is eroding trust in Paul's authority.
The great difficulty for Paul was in trying to convince people that his interpretation of Jesus was equal to that of the other apostles who had actually known him in life, especially when their number included Jesus's actual family members who'd been raised with him. This was embarrassing for Paul.
The existence of Jesus’ brother is further strengthened by the fact he is attested outside of Christian texts – in Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XX.200-203:
“When, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah (τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου), whose name was James, and some others. And, when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.
But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.”
But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.”
Unlike the other reference to Jesus in Josephus – the so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” at Ant. XVIII.63-4 – this reference is near universally regarded as genuine and as referring to Jesus Christ and his brother James.
Josephus was a younger contemporary of James, being around 25 when James was executed, and a fellow citizen of Jerusalem, a small city of around 80,000 inhabitants (see Josephus, Life, III). As such, Josephus is likely speaking from first-hand knowledge and not merely as a historian.
So, in sum: Paul physically met Jesus’ brother and spoke with him on different occasions. Josephus was a younger contemporary of the same brother and witnessed the events of James’ execution in Jerusalem where he lived. James the brother of Jesus existed, which means that his brother Jesus of Nazareth also must have existed.
No mythicist arguments have ever or can ever get around this.
Last edited:
Yes, I'm well aware of those, Galatians in particular, and the arguments surrounding them. As some commentators have pointed out, 'brother' is ambiguous, a term Paul uses elsewhere to refer to followers of Jesus. I don't think that argument is overwhelming, but nor do I think a reading of a blood brother is a clincher for an historical Jesus. It's also notable that Paul, who knows all but nothing biographical about Jesus, learns nothing more from a week with James.
Leaving aside the volumes of debate on the authenticity, or lack of it, in Josephus' two mentions of Jesus, Antiquities did not appear until the early 90s CE. It therefore records the belief, which certainly existed by then, that there had been an historical Jesus (who would have died before Josephus was born). So it can't be a clincher either.
Both the matters you mention are in favor of an HJ, as was the one I mentioned, but credible alternatives exist. In my view the question remains open.
From an historical point of view, if we assume an HJ then we can say he was an unnoticed worker in Jerusalem's prophet industry who acquired a small following; and that we know nothing about him directly ─ his name may not even have been Jesus in his lifetime (Philippians 2:8-10) ─ and we can only guess at his message, which may have been JtB's Get ready, the Kingdom is at hand ─ or may not. Fitzgerald even throws in an argument, based on the scansion of the verses in Philippians above, that since the crucifixion reference breaks the meter, it was not present in the original hence was added to the story later.
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
True that commands from God are those to be followed. As for interpreting what God said, it is important to have some help with interpreting or understanding Greek terms by those who know more than I do.
The account in Acts chapter 8 is very wonderful. You are speaking of Paul's conversion to Christianity? I think about Paul's conversation a lot.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It is true that I find many of Jesus' miracles astounding, but I believe they happened. It is not beyond the realm of possible. Because it is from God. And the furor Jesus caused, which is recorded, also makes me think that it happened as written -- it is true.
aurisadhibeo
Member
Yesterday I went outside and noticed all our roads are made of basically the same stuff. I touched it and turned some of that stuff to platinum. I am writing about right now. You dont have to wait 40 years for some people to write about what I did. This is my diary. Its all turned up to platinum. I know it sounds astounding but it is also written. (You can print a copy of this email if you want but please don't... think of the environment... save the trees!)
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I do not know yet much about Celsus, but opinions are opinions. I mean Celsus had opinions, others had their opinions. Wikipedia is a compendium of offerings and is pretty fair in its renderings on many subjects, pro and con.