RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
I asked you a question, you provided an answer. I appreciate that you took the time to do so.
-
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!
Historicity of Jesus
- Thread starter SigurdReginson
- Start date
Here's an interesting video I found on the historicity of Jesus. I'm kind of ignorant in this particular case (it's something I never looked into too deeply), so I'm kind of curious to know what you guys think. If you are more knowledgeable in this field of study, would you agree with what this guy on the internet seems to conclude?
I'm going to put this on the religious debate forum to promote free discussion.Argue away!
The evidence was well presented in a relatively non- biased manner. The argument for the historical existence of Jesus the Christ is compelling from an historical analysis. Whether He was the Messiah, the Son of God, performed miracles, was resurrected and ascended to heaven is an entirely different conversation. However the existence of Jesus is evidenced based and something most of us can agree with.
lukethethird
unknown member
There is no way of knowing if there was an historical figure behind the myth, regardless of the claims made by believers.
At best he was an apocalyptic Jew for less than 3 dozen years.
(Haven't we had this discussion before? Want to start a pool on total post count to be reached in this one?)
lukethethird
unknown member
Yes, and then rose from the dead after 3 days.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
Existed in the mind of your namesake, perhaps?
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
Another video, from an honest scholar, considers different views:Here's an interesting video I found on the historicity of Jesus. I'm kind of ignorant in this particular case (it's something I never looked into too deeply), so I'm kind of curious to know what you guys think. If you are more knowledgeable in this field of study, would you agree with what this guy on the internet seems to conclude?
I'm going to put this on the religious debate forum to promote free discussion.
lukethethird
unknown member
Questions that can't be answered rarely stop people from contributing their two cents worth.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
By the same criterion also baptism of Jesus, "purification" of the temple and crucifixion.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
There was a historical Jesus but little is known. "Jesus of faith" is based on Jesus of history.
Even if his life was mythologyzed he can have much impact as a symbol of love, compassion, faith in God (Father), detachment from ego and material things, purity in heart... This is what enlightens and saves. His teaching resonates with me.
This is what Einstein answered when he was asked if he accepts the historical existence of Jesus:
"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus."
Even if his life was mythologyzed he can have much impact as a symbol of love, compassion, faith in God (Father), detachment from ego and material things, purity in heart... This is what enlightens and saves. His teaching resonates with me.
This is what Einstein answered when he was asked if he accepts the historical existence of Jesus:
"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus."
Last edited:
Hmm, worth considering.
But the baptism of Jesus is only embarrassing to the developed story. In its first version, which we might call Mark I, Mark's Jesus is an ordinary human who does not become 'son of god' until immediately after JtB baptizes him ─ that is, the author of Mark is using Psalm 2:7 as his model (as Acts 13:33 makes unambiguously clear). The Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke are on a different model, genetic sons of God with God's Y-chromosome, and the gnostic Jesuses of Paul and John are on a different model again, having pre-existed in heaven with God and having created the material universe in the role of the demiurge.
The purification can arguably be explained as what a Jewish parent would do, even if [she] thought the child had been the result of divine insemination.
And the crucifixion is explained because right at the beginning of his ministry, Mark's Jesus says it's not going to end happily; , and that it's in fact a suicide mission is made unambiguous in all four gospels, where the Last Supper is indeed a farewell and Jesus rejects any idea of escape, and prays to his God who won't let him off the hook.
Last edited:
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Yes, the gospel writers tried hard to explain away all the embarrassing things.
Jesus being baptisted means also submission to John (maybe Jesus was his follower).
I don't know if we meant the same event in the temple. I meant when Jesus chased away people who sold things.
The Messiah killed. You can only get away with "suicide mission" if presented as fulfillment of prophecies and sacrifice for sins.
Ah yes, the man of misguided violence ─ misguided in that the traders were trading lawfully and if Jesus had any argument with the system, he needed to speak to the Temple authorities, not the traders.
I never figured out why it was necessary for Jesus to die ─ which makes me susceptible to the notion that if there was an historical Jesus and if he was crucified, the idea that his death was his own choosing is a rationalization added after the event. You've no doubt noticed that Mark's Jesus is a sad, defeated, forsaken figure, Matthew's is a bit less so, Luke's drops the forsaken bit and arranges things, and John's is MC at his own show.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You are referring to the time when Jesus took a whip and violently assaulted the Temple staff? It seems strange to me that you sum up such a violent event as "chasing away."
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Yes, he desecrated the Temple with violence. And Christians actually claim he did not sin.
lukethethird
unknown member
No violence in the temple if reading Luke gospel.
Moral violence only. But John's account is emphatic about the physical violence, the Trumpian character of the protagonist.
And in all cases, as I said, the attacks, moral or physical, were misguided, and should have been aimed at the Temple authorities.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Oh puhleeze. It says he took a whip. that's assault.
lukethethird
unknown member
In Luke gospel Jesus comes back to the temple to teach everyday without a whip, perhaps a tongue lashing, but no whip.