Yes
A progressive minded religious reformer.
He try to bring love of God and man back into the central focus of religion.
-
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!
Your POV on the historical Jesus
- Thread starter Galateasdream
- Start date
sooda
Veteran Member
Me too.. I just wish they had not gilded the lily or hijacked Jewish scripture to conform to Christian ideas.. To me they have just muddied the water.
sooda
Veteran Member
Was he a reformer? The burning issue of the day was Roman oppression and Jesus seems to have been tuned in to that in the Sermon on the Mount when he is teaching nonviolent liberation theology.
Sadly, they didn't listen and instead caused the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you should try historical studies. There have been no professional historians who have rejected the existence of Jesus. The evidence is
- Mark's gospel, written about 40 years after the crucifixion. It was referred to by Papias only 50 years after the probable date of composition and contains no obvious errors (unlike Luke or John).
- Paul's letters, written about 20 years after the crucifixion and quoted by Clement of Rome only about 40 years later.
- Two references in Josephus, writing only about 60 years after the the crucifixion.
- A reference in Tacitus, writing about 80 years after the crucifixion.
You also need to consider that no ancient writer ever questioned the historicity of Jesus. Romans asked why anyone would follow the teaching of a Palestinian peasant, let alone accept that he was a divine emissary, but no critic of Christianity ever said "That fellow you worship never even existed!"
OTOH, NOT generally accepted by scholars: that he was actually the Son of God, performed any miracles, or said any of the specific things attributed to him in the Gospels.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
???
Well, there goes the neighborhood... bye, bye, guys ....
Classical period- Herodotus (484 BC – c. 420 BC), Halicarnassus, wrote the Histories that established Western historiography.
- Thucydides (460 BC – c. 400 BC), Peloponnesian War
- Xenophon (431 BC – c. 360 BC), Athenian knight and student of Socrates
- Ctesias (early 4th century BC), Greek historian of Assyrian, Persian, and Indian history
- Theopompus (c. 380 BC – c. 315 BC), Greek history
- Eudemus of Rhodes (c. 370 – c. 300 BC), Greek historian of science
- Ptolemy I Soter (367 BC – c. 283 BC), general of Alexander the Great, founder of Ptolemaic Dynasty
- Duris of Samos (c. 350 BC – after 281 BC), Greek history
- Berossus (early 3rd century BC), Babylonian historian
- Timaeus of Tauromenium (c. 345 BC – c. 250 BC), Greek history
- Manetho (3rd century BC), Egyptian historian and priest from Sebennytos (ancient Egyptian: Tjebnutjer) who lived during the Ptolemaic era
- Quintus Fabius Pictor (c. 254 BC – unknown date), Roman history
- Artapanus of Alexandria (late 3rd to early 2nd centuries BC), Jewish historian of Ptolemaic Egypt
- Cato the Elder (234–149 BC), Roman statesman and historian, author of the Origines
- Cincius Alimentus (late 2nd century BC), Roman history
- Gaius Acilius (fl. 155 BC), Roman history
- Agatharchides (fl. mid-2nd century BC), Greek history
- Polybius (203 BC – c. 120 BC), early Roman history (in Greek)
- Sempronius Asellio (c. 158 – after 91 BC), early Roman history
- Valerius Antias (1st century BC), Roman history
- Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius (1st century BC), Roman history
- Diodorus of Sicily (1st century BC), Greek history
- Posidonius (c. 135 BC – 51 BC), Greek and Roman history
- Theophanes of Mytilene (fl. mid 1st-century BC), Roman history
- Julius Caesar (100 BC – c. 44 BC), Gallic and civil wars
- Sallust (86 BC–34 BC), Roman history
- Dionysius of Halicarnassus (c. 60 BC – after 7 BC), Roman history
- Livy (c. 59 BC – c. 17 AD), Roman history
- Memnon of Heraclea (fl. 1st century AD), Greek and Roman history
- Strabo (63 BC - 24 AD), geography, Greek history
- Marcus Velleius Paterculus (c. 19 BC – c. 31 AD), Roman history
- Claudius (10 BC – 54 AD), Roman, Etruscan and Carthaginian history
- Pamphile of Epidaurus (female historian active during the reign of Nero, r. 54–68), Greek history
- Marcus Cluvius Rufus, (fl. 41–69), Roman history
- Quintus Curtius Rufus (c. 60–70), Greek history
- Flavius Josephus (37–100), Jewish history
- Dio Chrysostom (c. 40 – c. 115 AD), history of the Getae
- Thallus (early 2nd century AD), Roman history
- Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56–120), early Roman Empire
- Plutarch (c. 46–120), Parallel Lives of important Greeks and Romans
- Criton of Heraclea (fl. 100), history of the Getae and the Dacian Wars
- Suetonius (c. 69 – after 122), Roman emperors up to the Flavian dynasty
I believe he existed. And I believe that the Christ is non other than God in human form - the Avatar just as Krishna and Buddha and uncounted others was the same Avatar in different human forms.
I don't accept all the Bible attributes to him including that he died on the cross (and neither do Muslims and some who assert he died in India many years later). But while Christians and many others assume death is the ultimate sacrifice, to me voluntarily accepting extreme suffering for the sake of others is the true sacrifice of the Christ.
I assume based on how we see legends being born today such as cargo cults, that mythology grew up around what he really did do or say but that the mythology contains an element of truth.
And given what my memory and the memory of friends is like for events 40 years earlier, I doubt that everything in the Bible is literal truth. But again based on my memory, I accept much as what people remembered, especially of things that struck people as highly significant and thus remembered reasonably well decades later.
???
Well, there goes the neighborhood... bye, bye, guys ....
You wouldn't happen to be a College Classics Major dropout, would you?
Classical periodHellenistic period
- Herodotus (484 BC – c. 420 BC), Halicarnassus, wrote the Histories that established Western historiography.
- Thucydides (460 BC – c. 400 BC), Peloponnesian War
- Xenophon (431 BC – c. 360 BC), Athenian knight and student of Socrates
- Ctesias (early 4th century BC), Greek historian of Assyrian, Persian, and Indian history
Roman Empire
- Theopompus (c. 380 BC – c. 315 BC), Greek history
- Eudemus of Rhodes (c. 370 – c. 300 BC), Greek historian of science
- Ptolemy I Soter (367 BC – c. 283 BC), general of Alexander the Great, founder of Ptolemaic Dynasty
- Duris of Samos (c. 350 BC – after 281 BC), Greek history
- Berossus (early 3rd century BC), Babylonian historian
- Timaeus of Tauromenium (c. 345 BC – c. 250 BC), Greek history
- Manetho (3rd century BC), Egyptian historian and priest from Sebennytos (ancient Egyptian: Tjebnutjer) who lived during the Ptolemaic era
- Quintus Fabius Pictor (c. 254 BC – unknown date), Roman history
- Artapanus of Alexandria (late 3rd to early 2nd centuries BC), Jewish historian of Ptolemaic Egypt
- Cato the Elder (234–149 BC), Roman statesman and historian, author of the Origines
- Cincius Alimentus (late 2nd century BC), Roman history
- Gaius Acilius (fl. 155 BC), Roman history
- Agatharchides (fl. mid-2nd century BC), Greek history
- Polybius (203 BC – c. 120 BC), early Roman history (in Greek)
- Sempronius Asellio (c. 158 – after 91 BC), early Roman history
- Valerius Antias (1st century BC), Roman history
- Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius (1st century BC), Roman history
- Diodorus of Sicily (1st century BC), Greek history
- Posidonius (c. 135 BC – 51 BC), Greek and Roman history
- Theophanes of Mytilene (fl. mid 1st-century BC), Roman history
- Julius Caesar (100 BC – c. 44 BC), Gallic and civil wars
- Sallust (86 BC–34 BC), Roman history
- Dionysius of Halicarnassus (c. 60 BC – after 7 BC), Roman history
- Livy (c. 59 BC – c. 17 AD), Roman history
- Memnon of Heraclea (fl. 1st century AD), Greek and Roman history
- Strabo (63 BC - 24 AD), geography, Greek history
- Marcus Velleius Paterculus (c. 19 BC – c. 31 AD), Roman history
- Claudius (10 BC – 54 AD), Roman, Etruscan and Carthaginian history
- Pamphile of Epidaurus (female historian active during the reign of Nero, r. 54–68), Greek history
- Marcus Cluvius Rufus, (fl. 41–69), Roman history
- Quintus Curtius Rufus (c. 60–70), Greek history
- Flavius Josephus (37–100), Jewish history
- Dio Chrysostom (c. 40 – c. 115 AD), history of the Getae
- Thallus (early 2nd century AD), Roman history
- Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56–120), early Roman Empire
- Plutarch (c. 46–120), Parallel Lives of important Greeks and Romans
- Criton of Heraclea (fl. 100), history of the Getae and the Dacian Wars
- Suetonius (c. 69 – after 122), Roman emperors up to the Flavian dynasty
That's a jaw-dropping winning post.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
If history did not exist until after the bible was compiled, how is there anything in the Bible????
Well, there goes the neighborhood... bye, bye, guys ....
You wouldn't happen to be a College Classics Major dropout, would you?
Classical periodHellenistic period
- Herodotus (484 BC – c. 420 BC), Halicarnassus, wrote the Histories that established Western historiography.
- Thucydides (460 BC – c. 400 BC), Peloponnesian War
- Xenophon (431 BC – c. 360 BC), Athenian knight and student of Socrates
- Ctesias (early 4th century BC), Greek historian of Assyrian, Persian, and Indian history
Roman Empire
- Theopompus (c. 380 BC – c. 315 BC), Greek history
- Eudemus of Rhodes (c. 370 – c. 300 BC), Greek historian of science
- Ptolemy I Soter (367 BC – c. 283 BC), general of Alexander the Great, founder of Ptolemaic Dynasty
- Duris of Samos (c. 350 BC – after 281 BC), Greek history
- Berossus (early 3rd century BC), Babylonian historian
- Timaeus of Tauromenium (c. 345 BC – c. 250 BC), Greek history
- Manetho (3rd century BC), Egyptian historian and priest from Sebennytos (ancient Egyptian: Tjebnutjer) who lived during the Ptolemaic era
- Quintus Fabius Pictor (c. 254 BC – unknown date), Roman history
- Artapanus of Alexandria (late 3rd to early 2nd centuries BC), Jewish historian of Ptolemaic Egypt
- Cato the Elder (234–149 BC), Roman statesman and historian, author of the Origines
- Cincius Alimentus (late 2nd century BC), Roman history
- Gaius Acilius (fl. 155 BC), Roman history
- Agatharchides (fl. mid-2nd century BC), Greek history
- Polybius (203 BC – c. 120 BC), early Roman history (in Greek)
- Sempronius Asellio (c. 158 – after 91 BC), early Roman history
- Valerius Antias (1st century BC), Roman history
- Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius (1st century BC), Roman history
- Diodorus of Sicily (1st century BC), Greek history
- Posidonius (c. 135 BC – 51 BC), Greek and Roman history
- Theophanes of Mytilene (fl. mid 1st-century BC), Roman history
- Julius Caesar (100 BC – c. 44 BC), Gallic and civil wars
- Sallust (86 BC–34 BC), Roman history
- Dionysius of Halicarnassus (c. 60 BC – after 7 BC), Roman history
- Livy (c. 59 BC – c. 17 AD), Roman history
- Memnon of Heraclea (fl. 1st century AD), Greek and Roman history
- Strabo (63 BC - 24 AD), geography, Greek history
- Marcus Velleius Paterculus (c. 19 BC – c. 31 AD), Roman history
- Claudius (10 BC – 54 AD), Roman, Etruscan and Carthaginian history
- Pamphile of Epidaurus (female historian active during the reign of Nero, r. 54–68), Greek history
- Marcus Cluvius Rufus, (fl. 41–69), Roman history
- Quintus Curtius Rufus (c. 60–70), Greek history
- Flavius Josephus (37–100), Jewish history
- Dio Chrysostom (c. 40 – c. 115 AD), history of the Getae
- Thallus (early 2nd century AD), Roman history
- Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56–120), early Roman Empire
- Plutarch (c. 46–120), Parallel Lives of important Greeks and Romans
- Criton of Heraclea (fl. 100), history of the Getae and the Dacian Wars
- Suetonius (c. 69 – after 122), Roman emperors up to the Flavian dynasty
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Wait a minute, sister, ... Do you mean to tell me that Grandfather Noah was B.S.ing his grandkids when he explained why snakes crawl on their bellies and other reptiles have feet and when he explained why rainbows exist?
Party-pooper.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Maybe his just has blank pages?
- Papias was probably not referring to our present-day gMark, in fact it is still unclear to which document Papias was referring.
- The Pauline epistles aren't real letters but documents of faith written in the form of letters. You cannot use them for historical purposes as with the gospel of Mark.
- There is still some doubt about the authenticity of those references in Josephus.
- Same problem with Tacitus.
Nobody doubted the existence of Adam and Eve until the Theory of Evolution shot holes into that creation myth.
Gods are made up for religious reasons, Alexander the Great and Pythagoras were not spiritual leaders at the base of new religions.
Last edited:
Whether Jesus was a historical figure or not doesn't matter. We have the ideas presented by the story. What matters is if we find the ideas beneficial or not. For me, some are, some aren't.
Last edited:
The question of whether the Galilean, first century Jewish preacher named Jesus - who was crucified in Roman-occupied Judea by its fifth prefect Pontius Pilate - 'existed', is not a 'live' topic of great debate or interest in critical-historical research. The focus for scholars is overwhelmingly upon your second question; "what was he like?" and the answer diverges quite dramatically, in most cases, from the traditional Christian account once you get passed the uncontroversial elements that the majority of researchers have accepted as credible (i.e. his baptism by John, the incident in the Temple complex in Jerusalem, his crucifixion, his posthumous deification by his followers soon after his death and the fact that messianic/apocalyptic expectations circled around him).
Nearly all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed:
"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that" (Burrdige 2004, p. 34).
As in any discipline where there is a broad research consensus among accredited experts (such as the scientific consensus on global warming), there are obviously some very good reasons why there is a broad scholarly consensus on the matter by scholars across a wide range of beliefs and backgrounds, including atheists and agnostics (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) and Jews (e.g. Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby).
The question of whether he existed at all is a curiosity that, for some inexplicable reason (outside the very fringes of the academic world, as with Carrier), commands an undue level of attention in popular discourse but really doesn't interest most serious scholars. The disconnect is rather big.
I really don't understand why this is the case: in most other research fields, interested lay men and women (such as, in the physical sciences or even other branches of historical study) typically defer to the consensus of those who are qualified to speak with authority on those subject matters, and have undergone years - or even decades - of training to be in a position to do so.
But for some reason, many people outside academia keep banging on about this issue - as if its a topic of pressing critical-analysis and debate in Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton etc. and other centres of scholarship, when it just isn't on their radar. If they aren't fussed about it, why should I be?
The second question "who was the historical Jesus?" is the properly interesting one, regarding which there is to this day no clear consensus beyond the bare essentials of his life and teaching. There are some viable broad-stroked schools of thought among scholars about the historical Jesus and other portraits that are clearly deemed wrong by the majority of serious secular academic researchers (generally faith-based ones).
There are roughly five "mainstream" perspectives, which can be laid out as follows (with the names of some prominent scholars advocating this viewpoint):
Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Jesus the Prophet of Social Change
Jesus the Wisdom Sage
Jesus the Man of the Spirit (Charismatic Healer/Hasid)
Jesus the Messiah claimant
So take your pick from those: each 'portrait' has (generally) equally strong scholarly credentials and some persuasive, historically plausible arguments in its favour. And I should note that they aren't all mutually exclusive (my personal reading pulls from both the apocalyptic prophet and prophet of social change perspectives, mostly).
Last edited:
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Ready for a walk on "the wild side"?
- re: #1. Considering the alternative, I say "Yes".
- "What alternative?" Oh, like: if he didn't exist then Christianity was started by a couple of disgruntled, anti-establishment "poor-to-middle class" Jews who were sitting around and decided to stir up sh** by suckering in as many other Jews as they could, then the temper of the times boiled over until Vespasian came in and squashed the lot of them, forcing goofy survivors of the pre-communist communist cult to scatter and attempt to reorganize by establishing increasingly Gentile and decreasingly Jewish underground cells to "keep the passions of the faith burning", until Constantine came along and figured out how to co-opt the cult to his advantage. How's that for an alternative?
- What would make that alternative even more convincing, I suppose, is confirmation of the "recent"(?} theory that the whole Jewish captivity and exodus from Egyptian domination never occurred, in which case, the existing and increasing doubt that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ever existed is true and would lend credibility to a theory that the first "real" Jewish patriarchs were probably genetic schizophrenics prone to visual and auditory hallucinations and delusions, which theory, of course, would completely undermine the whole premise and raison d'être, so to speak, of all Abrahamic religions; and would raise serious doubts about the sanity of gullible Gentiles who buy into the whole convoluted Jewish-initiated delusion.
- Gee, ... that would make me a potentially dangerous person, wouldn't it?
- "What alternative?" Oh, like: if he didn't exist then Christianity was started by a couple of disgruntled, anti-establishment "poor-to-middle class" Jews who were sitting around and decided to stir up sh** by suckering in as many other Jews as they could, then the temper of the times boiled over until Vespasian came in and squashed the lot of them, forcing goofy survivors of the pre-communist communist cult to scatter and attempt to reorganize by establishing increasingly Gentile and decreasingly Jewish underground cells to "keep the passions of the faith burning", until Constantine came along and figured out how to co-opt the cult to his advantage. How's that for an alternative?
- re: #2. IMO, he was like the tzaddik described in the Septuaginta, Book of Wisdom, Chapter 2:12-20.
- [12] "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training.
[13] He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord.
[14] He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
[15] the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
[16] We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
[17] Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
[18] for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
[19] Let us test him with insult and torture,
that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
[20] Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected." - Kind of like a very early Baal Shem Tov kind of guy.
- [12] "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
- re: #3. What did he do? Same thing he;s always done: holding up the world, like it says in Proverbs 10:25: צדיק יסוד עולם
- re: #3. What did he say? "Come follow me."
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I think Jesus was a Roman invention.
Based on the findings made by Joseph Atwell.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I believe Jesus did exist ca. 2000 years ago
I know Jesus still exists now
It's much easier to contact the "now" Jesus than the "2000 years ago" Jesus
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
Throughout the Old Testament scriptures, which all predate Christ by centuries, one sees over and over (most events!) that the primary emphasis and point/purpose of the stories/events is faith.
For example, at one point Israel is under severe danger and needs to send out a fighting force to defend itself, but God tells the people to send less troops (than needed) --
1 Early in the morning, Jerub-Baal (that is, Gideon) and all his men camped at the spring of Harod. The camp of Midian was north of them in the valley near the hill of Moreh. 2 The Lord said to Gideon, “You have too many men. I cannot deliver Midian into their hands, or Israel would boast against me, ‘My own strength has saved me.’ 3 Now announce to the army, ‘Anyone who trembles with fear may turn back and leave Mount Gilead.’ ” So twenty-two thousand men left, while ten thousand remained.
4 But the Lord said to Gideon, “There are still too many men. Take them down to the water, and I will thin them out for you there. ....
....
until:...
7 The Lord said to Gideon, “With the three hundred men that lapped I will save you and give the Midianites into your hands. Let all the others go home.” 8 So Gideon sent the rest of the Israelites home but kept the three hundred, who took over the provisions and trumpets of the others.
-----------
Most of the Bible is like this in a various ways: about faith, instead of about other stuff.
From many centuries before Jesus. And continuing with Christ also.
------------
Consider: If obvious proof of Jesus and his works and his resurrection were available:
Easy obvious evidence anyone could examine...
Then faith would be pre-cluded. Preempted.
Prevented from arising.
Because faith (trust in God) isn't about already having proof ahead of time, but instead it's about trusting before there is proof.
We learn by reading, quite clearly that along with Love, the main goal of life as taught by Christ is still the same as in the older scripture: faith.
Love and Faith are the objective. The aim.
Therefore, there cannot be any easy clear evidence that just proves Christ, because that would destroy the whole point of life here, according to the text.
God seems to want those that can trust Him.
That makes sense if you think about it. How would eternal life be with people that distrust? They would sooner or later start a war.
I am not convinced by any of them. I would go for Jesus, the tantric-mystic guru or divine teacher.