Non-Christians: Jesus and the question of historicity ...

Yesterday I received in the mail an invitation to subscribe to the CSER Review, one which I will gratefully accept.

Where do you stand on the question of historicity?

I believe there was a man that lived historically and whose life and deeds form the basis of the mythographised Gospel character Jesus Christ.

There is so little historical evidence of first century Christianity that in my opinion all theories (including orthodox tradition) are highly speculative.

If I had to give an opinion as to what is most likely from all I've studied over the years, I'd say that that the majority of the materials we have are a synchretism built around a midrash on materials in the OT, in particular Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, mixed with the philosophies of Neoplatonism (especially in GJohn), the pagan Mysteries adapted to OT scriptures (in Paul's letters), and teachings from the Stoics and Cynics.

Whether any of this was inspired by the actual historical life of one or more persons is largely irrelevant as there's no way to discern it, and even if one makes that assumption, there's not enough evidence from which to sort out which parts are representative of that historical person and which parts are adapted mythology without resorting to speculation. A good case can be made that virtually every aspect of the story and the teachings were borrowed from elsewhere (mostly from Hebrew scripture).

doppelgänger;902100 said:

There is so little historical evidence of first century Christianity that in my opinion all theories (including orthodox tradition) are highly speculative.

If I had to give an opinion as to what is most likely from all I've studied over the years, I'd say that that the majority of the materials we have are a synchretism built around a midrash on materials in the OT, in particular Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, mixed with the philosophies of Neoplatonism (especially in GJohn), the pagan Mysteries adapted to OT scriptures (in Paul's letters), and teachings from the Stoics and Cynics.

Whether any of this was inspired by the actual historical life of one or more persons is largely irrelevant as there's no way to discern it, and even if one makes that assumption, there's not enough evidence from which to sort out which parts are representative of that historical person and which parts are adapted mythology without resorting to speculation. A good case can be made that virtually every aspect of the story and the teachings were borrowed from elsewhere (mostly from Hebrew scripture).

Click to expand...

I agree. Anyway, the history or legend of Jesus is no longer really important or relevant for people today, as the experience of God is a living reality - not a historic belief.

I agree as well with the idea that the story was accreted from elsewhere.

I've started to give thought to the idea presented by Tom Harpur (and likely others, but I'm most familiar with Harpur's writings) that the Bible wasn't an out-and-out theft of old ideas, but an attempt to re-frame eternal truths that had been presented through symbolism in a symbolic way again. In any case, there are too many odd coincidences and links between the Bible and other stories and religions for it not to have been based on borrowing. To me, this excludes the idea of the Bible as a historical document, as well as the historicity of Jesus of the Gospels and the major events of the Old Testament.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the living Son of God who rose physicaly from the grave and is coming again!

Rise Again

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Go ahead drive the nails in My hands, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Laugh at Me where you stand. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Go ahead, and say it isn't Me, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The day will come when you will see, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]'Cause I'll rise again. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There's no pow'r on earth can tie Me down. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yes, I'll rise again, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Death can't keep Me in the ground. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Go ahead mock My name, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]My love for you is still the same. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Go ahead and bury Me, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But very soon I will be free. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]'Cause I'll rise again. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There's no pow'r on earth can tie Me down. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yes, I'll rise again, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Death can't keep Me in the ground. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Go ahead, and say I'm dead and gone, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But you will see that you were wrong. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Go ahead, and try to hide the Son, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But all will see that I'm the One. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Cause I'll come again. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There's no pow'r on earth can keep it back. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yes, I'll come again; [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Come to take My people back [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yes I'll come again; [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Come to take My people back.[/FONT]

Ah, sorry was in Religious Debates section so I posted. You just want non-Christian's opinions, Sorry. Ignore it if you must.

Jay said:

Yesterday I received in the mail an invitation to subscribe to the CSER Review, one which I will gratefully accept.

Where do you stand on the question of historicity?

Click to expand...

Good publication, the CFI puts out some fantastic stuff.

Personally, I think there is too little evidence either way to come to any sort of conclusion about the historical accuracy of anything in the Bible.

It's my opinion that the Jews were influenced greatly by the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism during their 50 year exile in Babylon from approximately 587-539BCE, not that any want to admit it however.

Zoroastrianism taught of a coming savior born of a virgin along with God's adversary, a Satan type individual. Demonology and angelology also started to play a prominent role in Judaic writings which Zoroastrianism taught as well.

It's all just a bit too convenient to be ignored.

If you are asking about historicty in general I have nothing bad to say about it, I see nothing wrong with the further pursuit of knowledge. As for Jesus specifically, I am of the opinion that he is was a real person whose deads where embellished and altered by the Roman Empire to fit their needs as the central figure of their newly adopted religion. Lets take a look at the name Jesus for example. Jesus is not a hebrew/aramaic name, his name was likely Yeshua (Joshua, hebrew has no J). The name Jesus however is suspicously similar to a combination of Janus and Zeus, two of the principle deities worshiped throughout the Roman Empire (pre Constintinian Rome was the original home of freedom of religion). Ever notice that most artists depictions of Jesus that come after this point could easily be superimposed over a depiction of Zeus and only the color of the hair differs (Jesus didn't get to go grey after all). Don't even get me started on how they changed the dates of all his life events.

Well, I believe Baha`u'llah IS a Messenger of God. He is undoubtedly an historical figure. He says Jesus was a Manifestation of God and did exist. Therefore, I have no doubt Jesus existed.

I further have no doubt that the Gospels were developed through eye-witness testimony and writings that cannot be referred to anymore. Therefore, the Bible is not an infallible source. It is, however, a reliable source.

If I want infallibility I can go to the Baha`i and Babi sources.

Regards,
Scott

Well, I believe Baha`u'llah IS a Messenger of God. He is undoubtedly an historical figure. He says Jesus was a Manifestation of God and did exist. Therefore, I have no doubt Jesus existed.

Click to expand...

If I want infallibility I can go to the Baha`i and Babi sources.

Click to expand...

Such reasoning has to be based entirely on belief, not information regarding the evidence (or lack thereof) for Jesus' life.

Much in the Bible regarding Jesus' life is obviously taken from other, pagan religious sources. Perhaps the Jesus of the Bible is based on a person or persons with a life embellished with pagan myth. But there is really no way to know if he was based on a real person or not. Furthermore, it is irrelevant to me. I perceive truth in parts of the Christ myth. It doesn't have to be historically accurate to serve as a metaphor.

James

spiritually inclined said:

Such reasoning has to be based entirely on belief, not information regarding the evidence (or lack thereof) for Jesus' life.

Much in the Bible regarding Jesus' life is obviously taken from other, pagan religious sources. Perhaps the Jesus of the Bible is based on a person or persons with a life embellished with pagan myth. But there is really no way to know if he was based on a real person or not. Furthermore, it is irrelevant to me. I perceive truth in parts of the Christ myth. It doesn't have to be historically accurate to serve as a metaphor.

James

Click to expand...

The Bible account is not perfect. As to using Baha`u'llah, the Bab, or Muhammad as proof of the existence of Jesus--so?

Regards,
Scott

My apologies, again.

MaddLlama said:

Personally, I think there is too little evidence either way to come to any sort of conclusion about the historical accuracy of anything in the Bible.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the fact that you actually answered the question.

i'm afraid i am not at all well read in historical journals arguing for or against the historical Jesus... with the question of faith and divinity laid aside, did Jesus live? i would guess the most accurate measure of who was around at that time would be the tax records. has there been any research into that?

Jay said:

I appreciate the fact that you actually answered the question.

Click to expand...

All you wanted was a for or against an authentic historicity of Jesus?

It's fairly obvious from my post I think the person of Jesus is a borrowed fairytale.

Buttercup said:

It's fairly obvious from my post I think the person of Jesus is a borrowed fairytale.

Click to expand...

No, it was not at all obvious, but that is an entirely different discussion. Thank you for the clarification.

I have to agree with MadLama on this one. The "evidence" is so scant that we really have very little to go on. For example Popeyesays that Baha`u'llah says such and such and so it must be true. Interesting logic at work there. Joe says he believes that Jesus is the S.O.G. so there ya go. It's got to be authentic because people like Joe believe implicitly that it is so. Interesting logic at work there too. I do like Buttercup's observation though and it is likely a part of the whole ball of wax.

I am all for people exploring the historical authenticity of the Christ, but I am not especially sure that they will find much of any note. Sadly we must face the possibility that it is all a sham and a well crafted tale to amuse the unwashed masses. Ditto the life and times of Muhammed. There is little possibility of anyone finding anything meaningful from their time periods to confirm or deny the accumulated record.

Otoh, there is a state of consciousness that can be described as Christ consciousness and once you have peered through the aperture of that lens you simply do not see things the same old way ever again. That, in itself, does tend to lend credibility to some of these tainted old wives tales. In essence I think the writers of the Bible were influenced by a personality so advanced that they could not possibly fathom his state of awareness and so many tall tales got mixed in with the "accurate" information along the way. Since they didn't know what they were observing they were bound to get things wrong here and there.

Ymir,

I accept Baha`u'llah as what He says He is. Therefore His information onJesus is good enough for me.

Your mileage may vary, that does not bother me one way or the other.

I'm glad I don't have to worry about the historicity of Jesus. The historicity of Baha`u'llah is not arguable.

Regards,
Scott