What do we mean by a historical Jesus?

[Jayhawker Soule]

What's lacking is some clear clincher that he existed. As I keep saying, he may have. My point is that the opposite is equally plausible.

Equally plausible? Using what metric? Based on what accepted historiography? You confuse sophomoric skepticism with informed opinion.

 

[garden47]

Evidence that the author of Luke believed there had been an historical Jesus? If it's evidence of that, we can have as many more examples as we'd like.

What's lacking is some clear clincher that he existed. As I keep saying, he may have. My point is that the opposite is equally plausible.

Conversely, if the historical Jesus did not exist, a motley crew of individuals have perpetrated the greatest hoax in recorded history perpetuated over two millennium.

What evidence is "blü 2" prepared to produce that the "historical Jesus" was part of a massive conspiracy?

 

[blü 2]

Conversely, if the historical Jesus did not exist, a motley crew of individuals have perpetrated the greatest hoax in recorded history perpetuated over two millennium.

That doesn't follow, any more than any other god figure began as a hoax.

The Gabriel's Vision stone may or may not be evidence of a cult in Jerusalem in the 1st century BCE that believed a savior would come, die and rise after three days. Even if that weren't the case, it would show one kind of possibility.

Or consider the 'kenosis hymn' which Paul quotes at Philippians 2:5-11. It's thought to be the oldest Christian text we know of, and it has two matters of particular interest. First, 2:8 says,

"8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.​

The commentary I read says that the whole "hymn" is a metrical poem throughout, except for the words "even death on a cross" which aren't in meter. This points to those words being a later gloss, and raises the possibility that death on the cross was not part of the original story (though I don't suggest it proves it).

Then we have,

9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,​

which says that Jesus was not called Jesus (Aramaic Yeshua, from Hebrew Yehoshua, 'Joshua', meaning 'Yah[weh] is salvation') until after his death, meaning that 'Jesus' is a sobriquet. At the least, the earliest knowledge we have of Jesus is not history, but rather story.

Then Paul, who's never met Jesus, arrives some twenty years after the traditional date of Jesus' death, knows nothing of an earthly biography for Jesus, and instead is fixed on declaring Jesus' divinity. Not until the author of Mark, 45 years after the traditional date, cobbles up a Jesus bio by joining the dots on purported messianic prophecies in the Tanakh, do we have the outline of a mortal.

What evidence is "blü 2" prepared to produce that the "historical Jesus" was part of a massive conspiracy?

What credible evidence does "Garden47" have of an historical Jesus, other than the usual 'everyone says so' and 'James the brother of the Lord'? We're looking for a clincher here, not just same old same old.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What credible evidence does "Garden47" have of an historical Jesus, other than the usual 'everyone says so' ...

... including the fact that:

Virtually all scholars who write on the subject agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, ... [source]​

But why should anyone defer to scholarship when faced wth your expertise?

... and 'James the brother of the Lord'?

... and the works of Paul and Luke and the fact that during the early days of Christianity, when it was under withering attacks from all sides, we find an amazing absence of mythicist polemic.

We're looking for a clincher here, not just same old same old.

No, you are insisting on "a clincher" while being wholly satisfied presuming an absurd conspiracy of fabrication. It's adolescent obstinacy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Conversely, if the historical Jesus did not exist, a motley crew of individuals have perpetrated the greatest hoax in recorded history perpetuated over two millennium.

What evidence is "blü 2" prepared to produce that the "historical Jesus" was part of a massive conspiracy?

How massive a conspiracy would it need to be? I mean, the sources for the vast majority of information about Jesus that made it to us - Paul and the Gospel authors - never met Jesus in person.

Edit: and the dating of the Gospels suggests that they weren't written

So say, hypothetically, that Jesus didn't exist; what's the smallest number of people who would have had to have had a hand in the story we have today?

 

[blü 2]

... including the fact that:

Virtually all scholars who write on the subject agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, ...​

An argument from authority is not evidence. I must have forgotten to mention that.

Now were you to set out the evidence from which they draw their conclusions, that would be to the point.

I mention again that I'm not claiming there was no historical Jesus ─ simply that it's plausible there wasn't.

 

[garden47]

Then Paul, who's never met Jesus, arrives some twenty years after the traditional date of Jesus' death, knows nothing of an earthly biography for Jesus, and instead is fixed on declaring Jesus' divinity.

Not until the author of Mark, 45 years after the traditional date, cobbles up a Jesus bio by joining the dots on purported messianic prophecies in the Tanakh, do we have the outline of a mortal.

What credible evidence does "Garden47" have of an historical Jesus, other than the usual 'everyone says so' and 'James the brother of the Lord'? We're looking for a clincher here, not just same old same old.

"blü 2" is free to question the accuracy of Paul and the Gospels in depicting the "historical Jesus," but for many of us they provide a credible account of His life.

With the total destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman legions in AD 70, the dispersal of the Jewish peoples and centuries of religious persecution of Christians within the Empire, its surprising that even those written records which would later comprise the New Testament survived such an onslaught.

Given that most early Christians lived in constant fear and were forced to meet in secret, preserving records of the "historical Jesus" was not their first priority.

Just as the Roman authorities destroyed the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem, they would also have had a vested interest in destroying any and all historical records that Jesus ever existed, as part of their ongoing efforts to extinguish Christianity from the Empire!

 

[blü 2]

With the total destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman legions in AD 70, the dispersal of the Jewish peoples and centuries of religious persecution of Christians within the Empire, its surprising that even those written records which would later comprise the New Testament survived such an onslaught.

A reasonable number of records about Jerusalem, and Judea generally, up to the destruction of the temple, have survived, including (by inference of the many copies) versions of the gospels. No ancient era escapes the problem that we never have enough information, but comparatively, this one isn't bad.

Given that most early Christians lived in constant fear and were forced to meet in secret, preserving records of the "historical Jesus" was not their first priority.

I'd be surprised if they differed from other religions who give priority to the preservation of their texts. But for a useful outline of Christian life after the temple and before Constantine, Christians and Pagans by Robin Lane Fox isn't bad. There were problems and persecutions, indeed, but not in every place, and only in bursts rather widely spaced.

Just as the Roman authorities destroyed the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem, they would also have had a vested interest in destroying any and all historical records that Jesus ever existed, as part of their ongoing efforts to extinguish Christianity from the Empire!

At the time the Temple fell, Christianity was scarcely heard of anywhere. If it was on any Roman to-do list, it would have been right at the bottom. The war had been against the Jews in general, and in 70 CE it appears that Christianity was still a sect within Judaism.

If you have records of a Roman policy around that era of destroying the texts of any religion, Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian, anything (as distinct from the general destruction of war), I'd be pleased if you could refer me to it. I can't think of any instances of such a thing.

 

[Faithofchristian]

What do we mean by a historical Jesus?

Did a historical Jesus exist?

Let's go outside of the Bible, Scriptures,

Let's take Christians who gave their lives for the cause of Jesus did exist.

Let's say this is nothing but a lie of the historical event of Jesus.

How many people would actually give their life base upon a lie, how many people would give up the lie to save their life?

But yet we find many people outside of the Bible, scriptures that gave their lives for the historical event of Jesus.

Therefore whether in the bible, scriptures or on the outside of the Bible, scriptures we find many people who gave their lives for the historical event of Jesus.

Many people were put to death and or burned at the stake for the historical event of Jesus.
Let's say that after we die and we enter the unknown we find the historical event of Jesus did not happen. I'm not losing a thing.

Let's say on the flip side, after we die and we enter the unknown we find the historical event of Jesus did happen. I win you lose.
You see I did what is called hedge betting.

Look a professional gambler, when they make a bet, they will cover all their bases.

Let's say I have my favorite football team, that I will place a bet on to win.
But then I will also place a bet on the opposing team to win also.
You see whether my football team wins or not, I still come out a winner either way.

Therefore I believe in the historical event of Jesus did happen, but if it didn't. Either way I still win.
But if it did, I win big time, and you lose big time. For in your life time you denyed the historical event of Jesus and now you gave Jesus every right to deny you. It goes both ways.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So say, hypothetically, that Jesus didn't exist; what's the smallest number of people who would have had to have had a hand in the story we have today?

Arguably, one, but why would positing such a scenario be seen as the most likely? Why sit around in the early fifties and fabricate epistles to mythical communities, epistles laced with fabricated claims of fabricated relationships with both the Jewish leadership and, later, a fabricated, nascent Yeshua cult? Why strain credulity with nonsense talk about some encounter on the road to Damascus instead of simply declaring oneself to be an apostle -- unless, of course, their existed cult members who could and would challenge the claim? And why the absence of a Mythical-Jesus rebuttal during the early days of anti-Christian polemic?

We know that Israelite society was coming apart during the later days of the Second Temple Period. We know that there were apocalyptic sects and sect leaders. The existence of an historical Jesus (sans miracles) would be anything but unusual.

 

[oldbadger]

The term "historical Jesus" generally refers to the idea that a real man once existed who is the inspiration for the central character in Christianity.

Hi........ and Yes.

My question is, how much can we remove from what remains before it is no longer close enough to the character in the scriptures to be called a historical Jesus?

For me, Historical Jesus is a research into the real person who (was used) to initiate the Christian movement.
For a start his name was not Jesus, that was first seen in bibles circa 500 years ago.

Suppose that all naturalistic aspects of the New Testament actually occurred but one. Maybe Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem during a census. If that fact can be disproved (and I believe it has), but all of the rest were correct, we could probably all agree that a historical Jesus actually once existed.

OK.....

At the other extreme, suppose that none of the story has a historical correlate apart from the fact that a rabbi named Jesus existed in the first century CE. If that were the case, we could probably agree that Jesus of the New Testament was a fictional character.

Rabbi? He was a handworker in the second order of peasants.
Jesus? He was probably Yeshua barYosef.

The question is, just how much can we carve away from this story and still say that what remains can be considered a historical Jesus?

Apart from the last verses and evangelical 'fiddlings' most of the gospel of Mark is accurate, and there are many pericopes or isolated anecdotes in the other gospels that help.
Writings from anti-Christians, Jews and others can also help.

Suppose the story is true except for the miracles, Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, he only had eight disciples and one was named Felix, Jesus was not a carpenter, his mother was not named Mary, there was no Last Supper or betrayal by Judas, Jesus was married and had children, and the Sermon on the Mount never occurred, but the rest is historical. Is that still the Jesus of the New Testament?

Some of the miracles probably have a basis in fact. His mother was not named Mary, possibly a Galilean Miriam BartaHeli, or more possibly she was actually a Judean high class who lived in Sepphoris. Yeshua was a handworker in either wood, bone, stone or even metal. Yeshua may have been married but we don't know.... most peasants did marry.
And 'Yesh', that's the Jesus of the NT....... there's much more we know than that as well.

I realize that there is no good answer to this question. My point is to illustrate the problem with the question. Just what do we mean by a historical Jesus?

A lot of Christians start off talking about HJ, but before long they creep into 'Historical Christianity'.

 

[blü 2]

What do we mean by a historical Jesus?

The human being, if any, in history who is the peg on which the NT Jesus stories are hung.

Did a historical Jesus exist?

Possibly. Possibly not. There's no clincher.

Let's take Christians who gave their lives for the cause of Jesus did exist.

That would require knowledge of whether they died for an historical Jesus or for a Christ of faith whose historicity is irrelevant to them.

How many people would actually give their life base upon a lie

Every religion has people who've fought and died for their religion, or said they did.

Anyone who never saw their god in reality ─ in the case of Christians, an historical Jesus ─ but died for their religion, died for a story they believed, not a fact they knew.

How many people would give up the lie to save their life?

If you mean by that, how many people would rather die than admit the story they believed was untrue, countless numbers, Christian or anything else. But not nearly as many as those who'd do the sensible thing.

Let's say on the flip side, after we die and we enter the unknown we find the historical event of Jesus did happen. I win you lose.
You see I did what is called hedge betting.

Let's say we die and we enter the unknown and find ourselves before Minos on a charge of badmouthing the Olympians? That seems to me no less likely than your version.

And there are thousands of religions, existing and defunct. How would you know which one to put your money on?

Why wouldn't you do what eg the Buddha said ─ live a good life and if there's an afterlife, keep your fingers crossed that it's run in a just manner, in which case you'll be okay whoever runs it.

And if there isn't, you'll still have done the right thing with your life.

 

[syo]

Jesus is real. I doubt he is imaginary. his teachings are consistent, that's why.

 

[DennisTate]

I didn't make up the story. I found it in an old book. My question, which was rhetorical, related to how much of that story one could strip away and still call what's left the account of an actual person that once lived.

You may enjoy this other discussion......
and these five paragraphs, supposedly from Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus to his inner circle of disciples.........
as shown to a near death experiencer who learned to duplicate the NDE state of consciousness through
a form of meditation.


Could Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus really have said this?

"You do not understand this life,” he said on a later occasion, “so you do not understand what you can achieve. You think that you were born and die and have only the time in between to live. The Sadducees do not even believe in the resurrection. And the Pharisees and Essenes believe you are saved or damned on the basis of what you do here in this life.”

“So you judge and condemn others and forsake love in order to enter heaven. Yet I tell you that the Father has many heavens and many homes for you. This is not your only life, and these are not the only things you have to learn. You will have lives in other times and places.”

“Do not judge the gentiles? You may have been a Gentile. Do not judge the prostitute” You may have been a prostitute. Do not judge the Roman or Greek? You may have been those.”

"The Father wishes you to know the life of the world in all its conditions so that you may be able to love those in all conditions. He wishes you to learn poverty and wealth, weakness and strength, sickness and health so that, in all these, you may seek Him and find Him.”

“Is He the Father only of the righteous? No, he is Father of all and Mother of all. All may come to God and find the love appropriate to their condition. Are you poor? Learn to love your fellows. Are you rich? Learn to give of your surplus to those who have nothing. Are you in a place of power? Learn to use your power for the good of others. Learn the love appropriate to the condition you are in and all conditions will become blessed.” (Bruce F. MacDonald Ph. D. page 117,118, The Thomas Book, Near Death, a Quest and a New Gospel by the Twin Brother of Jesus"

www.ThomasTwin.com/