Interesting post about the historicity of Jesus

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Interesting post about the historicity of Jesus

Post by _Fence Sitter »

honorentheos wrote:

Hi Fence Sitter,

Looking back on my Mormon upbringing I'm not sure that it follows from the OP that Jesus-as-Messiah necessarily requires a forcing of his life into the mythology by redactors. I think the faithful view is that the Jewish nation misunderstood that the purpose of the Messiah was not to save Israel from a geopolitical enemy but instead to save Israel and mankind from sin and death. While there are plenty of historical arguments to be made on those points, I don't think the believer must reevaluate their view based on the argument of the OP alone.

My 2¢.


Well then wouldn't that same argument apply to those that wrote the descriptions outlined in the OP and thus invalidate it as any proof of a historical Jesus?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Interesting post about the historicity of Jesus

Post by _honorentheos »

Fence Sitter wrote:
honorentheos wrote:

Hi Fence Sitter,

Looking back on my Mormon upbringing I'm not sure that it follows from the OP that Jesus-as-Messiah necessarily requires a forcing of his life into the mythology by redactors. I think the faithful view is that the Jewish nation misunderstood that the purpose of the Messiah was not to save Israel from a geopolitical enemy but instead to save Israel and mankind from sin and death. While there are plenty of historical arguments to be made on those points, I don't think the believer must reevaluate their view based on the argument of the OP alone.

My 2¢.


Well then wouldn't that same argument apply to those that wrote the descriptions outlined in the OP and thus invalidate it as any proof of a historical Jesus?

I don't think so. At lease as I read the OP, the point it seems to be making is that the narrative we have of the life of Jesus does not fit the sort of Messianic view found at that time in history and it is therefore unlikely that it is a fabricated myth from whole cloth. Whether or not the reinterpretation of what it meant for Jesus to have lived this life AND be the Messiah once he was executed could be either because he WAS the Messiah and the common view was mistaken all along and God had other designs independent of what the Jewish people thought He meant. Or, that the view of what it meant to be the Messiah had to be modified by Jesus' followers to maintain the belief that he was the Messiah but didn't meet the qualifications commonly held upon being executed by the Romans.

The OP alone doesn't force us to pick one or the other option.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Lucretia MacEvil
_Emeritus
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:01 am

Re: Interesting post about the historicity of Jesus

Post by _Lucretia MacEvil »

Chap wrote:[quoteI don't want to express a judgement about either of those books. But I wonder whether we shall ever see an example of Calculus Crusader referring to someone he disagrees with, without labeling that person as in some way mentally defective? It is a strange mental tic, and one what makes me glad I am only interacting with him in cyberspace.


You should have known him back in the days when he was defending Mormonism! New content, same form.

Hi CC. Always a pleasure to see you pop back up here.
The person who is certain and who claims divine warrant for his certainty belongs now to the infancy of our species. Christopher Hitchens

Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. Frater
_Calculus Crusader
_Emeritus
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:52 am

Re: Interesting post about the historicity of Jesus

Post by _Calculus Crusader »

SteelHead wrote:Cc is a Christian who abstains from Christ like behavior . I sometimes wonder if he isn't a sock puppet experiment into Poe's law.


Oh just because I wrote that I would not piss on you if you were on fire. :biggrin:
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
_Calculus Crusader
_Emeritus
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:52 am

Re: Interesting post about the historicity of Jesus

Post by _Calculus Crusader »

Lucretia MacEvil wrote:
You should have known him back in the days when he was defending Mormonism! New content, same form.

Hi CC. Always a pleasure to see you pop back up here.


Hi Beloved! I hope all is well for you in the land of permafrost. I also hope I am still your favorite NPCIS.

I first met Lucretia (and Beastie) on RfM in 1998, when I was still transitioning out of Mormonism. I would say the transition was not as difficult for me as for others since I was not raised a Mormon and did not come from a Mormon family. (For which I am thankful.)
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
_Servant
_Emeritus
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:48 am

Re: Interesting post about the historicity of Jesus

Post by _Servant »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:From Reddit's Best Of:

[history]/u/RosyFacedLovebird on Why Jesus was an unlikely fit for the Messiah, which interestingly validates his historicity.

Here is the thought-provoking post:

To the more or less the same extent that most people in history have been confirmed to have existed, yes.

Contemporary records in the ancient world are rare. Beyond Roman emperors and governors, they are vanishingly rare; for example, there are zero surviving contemporary references to Hannibal, despite the profound importance of the Punic Wars on the evolution of Rome. Jesus was a Galilean peasant preacher; it is utterly expected that there would be no surviving references to him until decades after his death.

There are many references to Jesus written soon after his death; many of these were later collected into the New Testament of the Bible. Mark was the earliest gospel to have been written, and it is believed to have been written about CE 66-70. It draws heavily from the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, the earliest parts of which were written between 40 and 60 CE--within recent memory of Jesus' death, which is likely to have occurred approximately 33 CE. The Epistle of James was possibly written 50-60 CE, and most of the Pauline epistles were almost certainly written 50-60 CE. To speak roughly, the Crucifixion was about distant in time from the earliest surviving Christian writing as 9/11 is from the current date, and about as distant from the first Gospels as the death of Princess Diana is from the current date. While we obviously cannot unquestioningly accept the entirety of the Epistles and Gospels as fact (nor can any primary source ever be unquestioningly accepted), few mainstream historians seriously consider that the entire thing is likely to have been made up out of whole cloth.

First, it doesn't really fit contemporary expectations of the Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to be of the house of David, from Bethlehem, who would lead the Jews to eternal glory and establish Israel as the greatest power on Earth, vanquishing all enemies of God beneath the sword. Jesus was a homeless man of unknown lineage, son of a rural laborer, from Nazareth, and as soon as he arrived in Jerusalem he was executed in the style of slaves, thieves, and brigands. If Jesus were made up, why make him from Nazareth? Why make his story so counter to the audience's expeectations--why not make him a heroic military rebel? And why have him be crucified, a shameful and degrading punishment that was absolutely unthinkable for a holy man to endure, and preposterous for a god to endure? It would have been (and, according to the later gospels, actually was) a completely unbelievable story to contemporary Jews. For a comparison, perhaps, a modern analogue might be if I were to claim that Jesus indeed returned, but actually he was a dude named Mike from Detroit this time (but, uh, he was born in Bethlehem because his parents were on vacation there), and Mike got shot by the cops while robbing a liquor store instead of creating the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. If I were to try to start a religion, and make up my Messiah out of whole cloth, I would probably not make the Messiah a small-time crook from Detroit. Similarly, if given a choice, the early Christians would probably not have made the Messiah a crucified itinerant from Nazareth.

Second, the earliest gospels and epistles were written at a time when Jesus was within living memory. If making up a memorable, charismatic figure, why say that he lived where your primary audience lived, and why say that he lived and died within living memory? If making up the man, it is unlikely they would have pointlessly run the risk of the audience saying, "Hey, wait, I remember dozens of preachers and holy men, and I don't ever remember anything about Jesus."

Third, there are near-contemporary references to Jesus outside the Christian community, in Josephus and Tacitus. This actually makes Jesus somewhat better attested than we might expect, considering how slight the evidence is for most historical figures of the time.

Ultimately, the historical Jesus is boring. He was a small-town preacher who wandered around, got a few followers, and then went to the big city and got himself in trouble with the cops, and then got himself killed. From scattered contemporary records, we know of at least a dozen similar historical stories. While he must have been exceptionally charismatic, in broad strokes his life story was so utterly unremarkable that it wouldn't even be worth falsifying.


Sure there were other messianic type figures that surfaced during the Roman Empire's occupation of Palestine. But these figures were political leader who claimed they would lead the Jews to victory against the Romans. Even Jesus' followers expected Him to do this. The difference between them and Jesus was the fact that Jesus never claimed His Kingdom was political. He spoke of it as "not of this world." Jesus did many miracles, but told people not to spread that around. He wasn't looking for sensationalism. He had a goal - and that was the Cross. He came in the world to die, not to be a political hero. And He did go to the cross to provide the ultimate sacrifice - the ONLY sacrifice that would save men. Ultimately, He overcame death - and there is no tomb of Jesus! He has risen.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Interesting post about the historicity of Jesus

Post by _Themis »

Servant wrote:Ultimately, He overcame death - and there is no tomb of Jesus! He has risen.


How do you know this?
42
_Servant
_Emeritus
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:48 am

Re: Interesting post about the historicity of Jesus

Post by _Servant »

Themis wrote:
Servant wrote:Ultimately, He overcame death - and there is no tomb of Jesus! He has risen.


How do you know this?


Don't you think that if the Romans could have produced the body of Christ they would have put it in a donkey cart and drove it up and down the streets of Jerusalem saying, "here he is!" Why do you think the disciples, fearful and hiding, all of a sudden "manned up" and went out and preached Christ? They were changed - they had seen the Lord! Sure there were other messianic type figures, but only the followers of Jesus Christ went into all the world and preached Christ crucified, Christ risen, Christ coming again!
_The Erotic Apologist
_Emeritus
Posts: 3050
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:07 pm

Re: Interesting post about the historicity of Jesus

Post by _The Erotic Apologist »

Servant wrote:
Themis wrote:Ultimately, He overcame death - and there is no tomb of Jesus! He
How do you know this?


Don't you think that if the Romans could have produced the body of Christ they would have put it in a donkey cart and drove it up and down the streets of Jerusalem saying, "here he is!" Why do you think the disciples, fearful and hiding, all of a sudden "manned up" and went out and preached Christ? They were changed - they had seen the Lord! Sure there were other messianic type figures, but only the followers of Jesus Christ went into all the world and preached Christ crucified, Christ risen, Christ coming again!

That doesn't answer the question: How do you know this?
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately.
--Yahoo Bot

I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess.
--Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Interesting post about the historicity of Jesus

Post by _Themis »

Servant wrote:Don't you think that if the Romans could have produced the body of Christ they would have put it in a donkey cart and drove it up and down the streets of Jerusalem saying, "here he is!" Why do you think the disciples, fearful and hiding, all of a sudden "manned up" and went out and preached Christ? They were changed - they had seen the Lord! Sure there were other messianic type figures, but only the followers of Jesus Christ went into all the world and preached Christ crucified, Christ risen, Christ coming again!


That doesn't answer the question of how you know these events you believe in really happened. The stories are written well after, and there is little to go on, so how do you know they happened as you believe? I am trying to get how one knows something is true.
42
Post Reply