Your POV on the historical Jesus

Galateasdream · Jan 23, 2020

The search for the historical Jesus is well known to be one of the most problematic issues in Religious Studies - it's really hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, can be safely asserted about the historical Jesus.

What are you guys' opinions?
Did he exist?
What was he like?
What did he do and say?

Rival · Jan 23, 2020

I think he existed and that he was an itinerant preacher picking up where John left after he was beheaded. I believe Jesus' message was likely something along the lines of 'The Kingdom of G-d is at hand' and telling folks to repent, as well as one of contempt for the religious leaders of the day for being what he thought of as hypocrites. Mostly he was irritating the Romans by causing civil unrest among rumours swirling in small circles of followers that he's the Messiah. I don't believe he was the Messiah or even a particularly noteworthy figure, but just happened to be in the place at the fateful time.

Heyo · Jan 23, 2020

Prof. Bart Ehrman (religious studies), argues for a historical Jesus:

Dr. Richard Carrier (historian), argues Jesus was "invented"

My position lies somewhere between the two. The historical Jesus of Ehrman is everything else but the Jesus of the Bible, so I think that he describes a Jesus but not the Jesus.
Carriers Jesus is a complete myth, invented by Paul and others. This invention story is too much of a conspiracy theory for me.
I think of Jesus as a legend, a glorified story based on one or more real people (with some later editing).

Dawnofhope · Jan 23, 2020

The historic Jesus was for me what most historians would agree on. Jesus was a real man, an itinerant religious teacher who was baptised and crucified by the Romans. His followers clearly believed Him to be the Promised Jewish Messiah. Although I share that belief with my Christian brothers and sisters it is a matter of faith that He was rather than historical fact. I believe the Gospels to be mostly authentic.

Edit: Jesus was crucified by the Romans, not the Jews.

Rival · Jan 23, 2020

adrian009 said:
crucified by the Jews.

By Jews?

Howard Is · Jan 23, 2020

Galateasdream said:
The search for the historical Jesus is well known to be one of the most problematic issues in Religious Studies - it's really hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, can be safely asserted about the historical Jesus.

What are you guys' opinions?
Did he exist?
What was he like?
What did he do and say?

The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, John Allegro

From goodreads review...
“A Study of the Nature and Origins of Christianity within the Fertility Cults of the Ancient Near East
Professor Allegro (Univ. of Manchester) has hitherto been known for his several excellent books on the Dead Sea Scrolls. In an unusual reversal, he has now produced a book that will make The Passover Plot seem the last refuge of theological ultra-conservatism. The thesis of the book is simple enough: Jesus did not exist, the Gospels were & are a hoax, & Christianity is the atavistic vestige of an ancient fertility cult in which the object of worship was a peculiarly phallic mushroom, Amanita muscaria, capable of producing psychedelic reactions. As farfetched as all this may seem, it cannot be denied that he has brought to this work the same care & scholarly detachment that have characterized his earlier, & more conventional, works; & he has made not one concession to the sensational nature of his thesis. The book is, in fact, a demanding one, which presupposes in the reader at least a working knowledge of the ancient Semitic tongues & of the sciences considered auxiliary to biblical studies. Only the most determined non-professional iconoclast will be willing to wade through his unrelenting jargon. None of which, of course, will affect the demand for what is probably to become a very controversial work.--Kirkus”

The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross by John Marco Allegro

http://files.constantcontact.com/e9721ddf601/d2c75e9f-5993-42fe-b789-464edc41e36c.pdf

Dawnofhope · Jan 23, 2020

Rival said:
By Jews?

By the Romans. I can’t believe I said that!

Jim · Jan 23, 2020

Galateasdream said:
The search for the historical Jesus is well known to be one of the most problematic issues in Religious Studies - it's really hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, can be safely asserted about the historical Jesus.

What are you guys' opinions?
Did he exist?
What was he like?
What did he do and say?

I think that all the good that it can do for people to read the Bible stories doesn’t depend at all on what anyone thinks about a historical Jesus. For historical purposes, from discussions that I’ve seen, it looks to me like there’s no solid ground for anyone to stand on, to say that He did or didn’t exist, or how much actual history there is in the gospel stories.

pearl · Jan 23, 2020

Galateasdream said:
What are you guys' opinions?
Did he exist?
What was he like?
What did he do and say?

Since there is only the Gospels that provide info on Jesus it will remain a matter of faith. I think the same question could be asked of Abraham and Moses. As far as Jesus is concerned we look to a consensus of the many, many scholars who ask the same questions. As for me I agree with Butlmann,
" that the historical man named 'Jesus' was an eschatological Jewish prophet whose original disciples(A.D. 30's) knew him only as such, and whom the post-apostolic (i.e. non-apostolic) Hellenistic church (late first century A.D.) deified as the Son of God: "Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God...,...the kerygma of the Hellenistic church proclaimed Jesus as the crucified and risen Christ" . That the two predominating cultural influences which shaped each New Testament document: [a] the historical Jesus dressed in the mythical garb of the Gnostic "heavenly redeemer"

Jim · Jan 23, 2020

pcarl said:
Since there is only the Gospels that provide info on Jesus it will remain a matter of faith.

There is always a possibility of discovering documents that are more useful for historical purposes. Apart from that, I wouldn’t exclude the possibility of advances in historical methodology making it possible to recover some actual history from available documents.

Marcion · Jan 23, 2020

I'm not sure whether there was a historical Jesus.
But if there was, I think he taught mainly these words as an itinerant teacher traveling with his disciples who practised his teachings:

The sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yeshua the Nazarene

He did not teach that he would return (let alone to judge anyone) nor that he was going to die on a cross nor that his followers should follow all sorts of Jewish or Christian customs, those words were put into his mouth by later Christians who remodelled Jesus to their liking. Nor was he born in Nazareth.

Mindmaster · Jan 23, 2020

Galateasdream said:
The search for the historical Jesus is well known to be one of the most problematic issues in Religious Studies - it's really hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, can be safely asserted about the historical Jesus.

What are you guys' opinions?
Did he exist?
What was he like?
What did he do and say?

Well, considering so much of his story is "bootleg" probably not. (Steals many of the "miracles" of Moses and others, as well as Apollonius of Tyana (who we _know_ was a real guy) The Bible doesn't qualify as evidence anymore than any other possible work of fiction that cannot be validated.

What was he like? Who knows... As soon as someone get's deified they start sounding more like a comic book character than a real human being. Ditto for the "do and say"...

By modern standards, early Christians would just be a whacko cult...

pearl · Jan 23, 2020

Jim said:
There is always a possibility of discovering documents that are more useful for historical purposes. Apart from that, I wouldn’t exclude the possibility of advances in historical methodology making it possible to recover some actual history from available documents.

I think the amount of extant documents to be discovered are scant at best. Like pealing an onion or an archaeological dig, uncovering layer after layer. Yes, it is historical methodology that has taken us this far.

PruePhillip · Jan 23, 2020

Jim said:
There is always a possibility of discovering documents that are more useful for historical purposes. Apart from that, I wouldn’t exclude the possibility of advances in historical methodology making it possible to recover some actual history from available documents.

You won't get it.
The Gospels are presented as an article of faith - you can't easily dismiss
them but you have to prove them by living it.
Josephus Flavius made the point of not giving Jesus the oxygen of history.
Despite Christians being prominent in his day and despite him referring to
John the Baptist - the silence is amazing, it has a point and it was meant to
be that way.

SalixIncendium · Jan 23, 2020

Galateasdream said:
Did he exist?

I can't intelligently answer that question, nor do I believe can anyone else here.

Galateasdream said:
What was he like?

Based on the narrative, if he did exist, I think he'd have been a teacher, sage, guru, and/or possibly enlightened. No more divine than you or me.

Galateasdream said:
What did he do and say?

All I have to go on is what other people have written about him. I can't really say, without a doubt, that he actually did or said any of these things, because this would be akin to the best game of "telephone" ever.

sooda · Jan 23, 2020

PruePhillip said:
You won't get it.
The Gospels are presented as an article of faith - you can't easily dismiss
them but you have to prove them by living it.
Josephus Flavius made the point of not giving Jesus the oxygen of history.
Despite Christians being prominent in his day and despite him referring to
John the Baptist - the silence is amazing, it has a point and it was meant to
be that way.

The problem for me are the private conversations where no one was present to report what Jesus said.... and the contradictions in the gospels.

Luke completely screwed up the geography.. Maybe he stayed in Antioch, Syria.

Vinayaka · Jan 23, 2020

Galateasdream said:
The search for the historical Jesus is well known to be one of the most problematic issues in Religious Studies - it's really hard to figure out exactly what, if anything, can be safely asserted about the historical Jesus.

What are you guys' opinions?
Did he exist?
What was he like?
What did he do and say?

For me personally it's not problematic at all because it's outside my field/paradigm. So my answer is the whole topic is irrelevant (to me, and maybe half the people on this planet). But I have heard of it, and if pressed will say I lean to not existing, but I don't know.

PruePhillip · Jan 23, 2020

sooda said:
The problem for me are the private conversations where no one was present to report what Jesus said.... and the contradictions in the gospels.

Luke completely screwed up the geography.. Maybe he stayed in Antioch, Syria.

When history contradicts itself you have no issue. And when science contradicts itself
you wouldn't complain. I have no doubt contradictions are put into scripture for a reason
- just note the strange discrepancy in Jesus' genealogy.
The Jews had plenty of contradictions with Jesus too. They had the option of being
consumed by it or actually listening to what Jesus had to say (case to point - Jesus
is said to be a Galilean but the Jews pointed out that the Messiah must come from
Bethlehem. Jesus did not explain his situation)

Mock Turtle · Jan 23, 2020

Possibly existed, as depicted, probably not. Who knows as to what, if he existed, he preached or advocated? We just can't rely on texts that old as to be entirely or even partially truthful. A convenient centre-piece for some doctrine perhaps - and even one that might help humans become rather better than they might be?

sooda · Jan 23, 2020

PruePhillip said:
When history contradicts itself you have no issue. And when science contradicts itself
you wouldn't complain. I have no doubt contradictions are put into scripture for a reason
- just note the strange discrepancy in Jesus' genealogy.
The Jews had plenty of contradictions with Jesus too. They had the option of being
consumed by it or actually listening to what Jesus had to say (case to point - Jesus
is said to be a Galilean but the Jews pointed out that the Messiah must come from
Bethlehem. Jesus did not explain his situation)

Galilee was safer and Hellenized. Jerusalem hated them and envied their prosperity. Herod Antipas wasn't concerned about Jesus so much.. He is the one who killed the Baptizer.

Your POV on the historical Jesus

Active Member

se Dex me saut.

Veteran Member

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

se Dex me saut.

Lucky Mud

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Nets of Wonder

Well-Known Member

Nets of Wonder

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

अग्निविलोवनन्दः

Veteran Member

devotee

Well-Known Member

Oh my, did I say that!

Veteran Member