Historicity of Jesus

[Kooky]

I'm sure random videos from Youtube will provide an accurate overview over the current scholarly debates on this subject.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I'm sure random videos from Youtube will provide an accurate overview over the current scholarly debates on this subject.

Eh... I've seen this guy before. He doesn't really talk about Jesus or christianiry. His gig is ancient Roman and medieval history, and Roman paganism. I think he has a unique perspective on the issue.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For the skeptic, the question that matters is not whether a man named Jesus preached in the Levant two millennia ago, but whether he was a deity or a spokesperson for one. Without that, the words attributed to him have to be judged on their own merit, and it doesn't matter who said them. I might go to the Bible even as an atheist if I found its advice resonated with me, just as I might read Aristotle or Buddha based on the content, not who wrote or said it.

So what is a historical Jesus? If I only disbelieve that he was born of a virgin, performed miracles, and was resurrected, but accept that a man named Jesus born to Mary and Joseph wandered the ancient world with a dozen apostles giving the message attributed to him and was ultimately crucified, is that enough to call Jesus of the New Testament a historical character? I think most would say yes, as would I. But how much of that story can be stripped away and still call what remains a historical Jesus? What if there were no apostles, or Jesus died a natural death, or he only said about 25% of what was attributed to him? Is that a historical Jesus? Is it enough that there was a Jew named Jesus preaching early in the first millennium, but none of the rest actually happened? Is that a historical Jesus.

That's a question for others to answer, since, as I indicated, if you remove the supernaturalism, none of the rest is of any value beyond the value of the words to the reader based on those words alone and not their alleged source.

 

[George-ananda]

This video is 28 minutes long. Can we get the tldr.

From all things considered I believe Jesus was a spiritual master who studied in the east (as far as the Himalayan region) and was more advanced than his Jewish contemporaries could grasp. Hence we are not left with a clear picture.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This video is 28 minutes long. Can we get the tldr.

From all things considered I believe Jesus was a spiritual master who studied in the east (as far as the Himalayan region) and was more advanced than his Jewish contemporaries could grasp. Hence we are not left with a clear picture.

That there properly on the positive side was a historical Jesus as some sort of leader, who gained followers, which we name Christians..

 

[SigurdReginson]

This video is 28 minutes long. Can we get the tldr.

From all things considered I believe Jesus was a spiritual master who studied in the east (as far as the Himalayan region) and was more advanced than his Jewish contemporaries could grasp. Hence we are not left with a clear picture.

He essentially goes through historical accounts from the perspective of people in the Roman empire who existed around the time of Jesus. He pieces together when Jesus most likely was born and died in relation to events that were happening in the Roman world according to the historical records of events such as a major census that happened at that time vs. people who were known to be alive then. It also goes into the mindset of people in the Roman empire at that time, and what they thought of Jesus and his disciples.

Nothing spiritual here, just dry history.

 

[Magical Wand]

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!

I think an interesting comment Ehrman made (which is relevant to the historicity of Jesus, IMO) is that there were many preachers at the time of Jesus. Ehrman argued Jesus was just one among many. Given that this was a very common practice (i.e., to preach some random apocalyptic religion), there is nothing extraordinary with the idea that a preacher called Jesus existed.

The counter-apologist and historian Richard Carrier argues against the historicity of Jesus, but even he admitted that it is not very improbable that Jesus existed. Carrier said it is a "50/50" chance that Jesus existed.

Dr. Carrier seems to think that Paul's letter which mentions "James, the brother of the lord" is the best evidence for Jesus' historicity, but Carrier has some arguments against it as well. Robert Price tried to show that this letter is a forgery in one of his books, but the consensus is that it is not a forgery.

Anyway, this stuff is very interesting, but I'm not an expert or anything. Just sharing some points I remember.

 

[Justanatheist]

For the skeptic, the only question that matters is not whether a guy named Jesus preached in the Levant two millennia ago, but whether he was a deity or a spokesperson for one. Without that, the words attributed to him have to be judged on their own merit, and it doesn't matter who said them. I might go to the Bible even as an atheist if I found its advice resonated with me, just as I might read Aristotle based on the content, not who wrote or said it.

So what is a historical Jesus? If I only disbelieve that he was born of a virgin, performed miracles, and was resurrected, but accept that a man named Jesus born to Mary and Joseph wandered the ancient world with a dozen apostles giving the message attributed to him and was ultimately crucified, is that enough to call Jesus of the New Testament a historical character? I think most would say yes, as would I. But how much of that story can be stripped away and still call what remains a historical Jesus? What if there were no disciples, or Jesus died a natural death, or he only said about 25% of what was attributed to him? Is that a historical Jesus? Is enough that there was a Jew named Jesus preaching early in the first millennium, but none of the rest actually happened? Is that a historical Jesus.

That's a question for others to answer, since, as I indicated, if you remove the supernaturalism, none of the rest is of any value beyond the value of the words to the reader based on those words alone and not their alleged source.

Well what I have been looking into is that a growing body of self identified Christians are saying that the resurrection is not literal, think on that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well what I have been looking into is that a growing body of self identified Christians are saying that the resurrection is not literal, think on that.

The church is hemorrhaging membership and seem to be experimenting with ways to draw people back and to make itself seem more relevant to young people and in step with the secular world. I'm not sure how removing the resurrection story helps with that, but I suspect that most meddling with the theology these days is rooted in this motive.

The church seems to be recognizing that hell theology is off-putting and belies the claim of the deity being good, loving, and just. I've seen hell turned into simply being separate from god, or returning to unconsciousness after death, and that God doesn't send people to hell; they send themselves.

But how can Christianity prosper without its stick? The carrot really isn't all that appealing - eternity spent worshiping a deity, so, without the threat of hellfire, the religion and the afterlife it promises need to be appealing.

How about Christians accepting evolutionary theory? That seems to be another adaptation, to try to avoid having to argue against science that is widely believed to be correct. But without Adam and Eve, there is no original sin, and so what do we need with a redeemer, and why was he killed (the divine reason, not the legal charges)?

I don't expect any of these adaptations to be effective, but I do expect the church to keep looking for a more appealing theology.

 

[Magical Wand]

How about Christians accepting evolutionary theory? That seems to be another adaptation, to try to avoid having to argue against science that is widely believed to be correct. But without Adam and Eve, there is no original sin, and so what do we need with a redeemer, and why was he killed (the divine reason, not the legal charges)?

It should be noted, however, that some Christians argue original sin is not fundamental to their theology. I'm not sure how this works, but that's what they say.

 

[Justanatheist]

Makes you wonder is there a sort of bottom line beyond which you are no longer a Christian. No literal resurrection, no original sin, what next?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Makes you wonder is there a sort of bottom line beyond which you are no longer a Christian. No literal resurrection, no original sin, what next?

Well, then bottom is someone like me. An atheist, who never had an actual personal problem with religion and is a culture Christian.
I mean, I seem to recall a Danish state church priest, who got kicked out, because he admitted to being an atheist. His parish protested because they considered him a good priest, but that didn't help.

 

[Harel13]

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!

I was happy he mentioned (one of) the Talmudic account(s) of Jesus. People often ignore it.

 

[firedragon]

From what I know, there are zero contemporaneous writings about Jesus. The only writings about Jesus' life, actions, and sayings were recorded decades later, likely in Greece, by almost entirely anonymous authors, or authors who claimed to receive their information third hand at best.

The only extra-biblical sources that mention Jesus, which are again decades later, merely record the fact that there were some Christians and describe some of the things they believed. Josephus' well-known passage about Jesus refers to him as "the Christ" which no Jew of that time like him would do, and uses language inconsistent with the rest of his writings. It is considered by most biblical scholars to be a later forgery.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Jesus never existed, but the severe lack of reliable evidence is a problem for Christianity, especially since you can see a clear trajectory of more exaggeration and more miraculous claims as the various gospels were written, the farther out in time you go. This chronological growth of the tale applies to the four gospels included in the bible, but also the other gospels that didn't end up getting voted in. It seems like I could extrapolate back to the source and have an entirely mundane story about a charismatic leader, like those we see starting random cults or MLMs today.

I think it's impossible to know who Jesus really was, and what he actually said and did. I wouldn't accept the sort of evidence found in the bible for any other kind of similar claims, and so I can't accept in there either.

Edit: I didn't watch the video, sorry. I just wanted to give my own take rather than react to it.

You made a fundamental error with Josephus and his account of Jesus. The episode you described where Josephus describes Jesus, the miracle worker is very much an obvious forgery. Chapter 3. Given.

But you or anyone cannot ignore the other episode which is not about Jesus, but about James, who is described as "James brother of Jesus who was called Christ". Josephus does not believe in this christ, but he just refers to him as the identifier of James. Just a passing remark if one should have to say. Was that chapter 9? I am referring to Josephus's antiquities of the Jews.

Also, with all due respect, I dont know if this OP, and that video is about the validity or the smooth sailing quality of the theology around Jesus, so that is irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

Hahaha! Eh... I don't debate at all. What's the point? That said, sometimes parsing the truth requires dissenting opinion, and sometimes that dissenting opinion comes in the form of raised voices.

Bart Ehrman? Haven't heard of em. Link me up!

Hmm. You should try out someone I respect a hell of a lot. Very controversial. Not an authority like Bart Ehrman, but also a prolific scholar. Reza Aslan. I have read all kinds of books, but never something like Aslans. If you can get your hands on it, read "zealot". The approach of the book is just fantastic.

But, as Rival said, Bart Ehrman is authority. I mean in NT scholarship academic circles practically pay homage to scholars like Ehrman. The honesty is what I respect personally, but the thing is his books are not in-depth enough. He writes for lay people to read so they are not technical. But he is a historian and completely takes a historical approach.

You should never ever miss Ehrman. Both of them as most confirm Jesus existed historically.

Robert Price would a truly qualified person who falls into the mythicist camp. Most other writers and speakers who are called mythicists dont have the scholarship Price has. So if you want the opposite perspective of a good scholar who is a mythicist, Price is the only guy as far as I am concerned. He is in-depth in his analysis. Also, I think he is absolutely honest.

 

[metis]

One of my majors as an undergrad was in history, and the one thing you quickly discover is that when you are reading "history" you're actually reading various people's take on what they think happened through their research.

My "take" on Jesus is his supposed words that he "came to serve, not to be served", which makes sense in the context of "love one another...". IOW, he appeared to be mostly "other-oriented".

But then, who knows for sure, but I'll go with the teaching anyway as it resonates with me.

 

[Link]

As far I'm concerned Prophets (a) never die when they die, and Isa (a) didn't even die, so just get connected to him spiritually. He is alive. Ask him and ask Prophets anything you need to know and ask them who the current guide on earth is.

 

[Moonjuice]

I'm sure random videos from Youtube will provide an accurate overview over the current scholarly debates on this subject.

Where do you go to find current scholarly debates?

 

[Justanatheist]

Where do you go to find current scholarly debates?

Mostly down the pub, never got one but for some reason I keep going

 

[Augustus]

Makes you wonder is there a sort of bottom line beyond which you are no longer a Christian. No literal resurrection, no original sin, what next?

Original sin didn't even exist until around the 4th C, so it can't really be a definitive characteristic of Christianity.