The Myth of the Historical Jesus

(On edit: fixed misspelling)

Maybe this article has been posted in this forum sometime in the past. If not, then here it is since it is very interesting take on the "historical Jesus". That's the first article (first link).

I also found a second study by a person named Gil Student who analyzed the supposed contemporaneous mention of Jesus on the Talmud. It shows the passages that mention two figures (Yeshu Ben Pendera and Ben Stada) who maybe helped to shape the Biblical Jesus. One figured lived a century before the biblical Jesus and the other lived the century after the biblical Jesus' death. That's the second article (second link).

----------------------------
First Article: "REFUTING MISSIONARIES by Hayyim ben Yehoshua"

"...When confronted by a Christian missionary, one should immediately point out that the very existence of Jesus has not been proven. When missionaries argue they usually appeal to emotions rather than to reason and they will attempt to make you feel embarrassed about denying the historicity of Jesus. The usual response is something like "Isn't denying the existence of Jesus just as silly as denying the existence of Julius Caesar or Queen Elizabeth?" A popular variation of this response used especially against Jews is "Isn't denying the existence of Jesus like denying the Holocaust?" One should then point out that there are ample historical sources confirming the existence of Julius Caesar, Queen Elizabeth or whoever else is named, while there is no corresponding evidence for Jesus... "

"...Why did people believe that Jesus's mother was named Mary and her husband named Joseph? Why did non-Christians accuse Mary of being an adultress while Christians believed she was a virgin? To answer these questions one must examine some of the legends surrounding Yeishu. We cannot hope to obtain the absolute truth concerning the origins of the Jesus myth but we can show that reasonable alternatives exist to blindly accepting the New Testament.

The name Joseph for Jesus's stepfather is easy to explain. The Notzri movement was particularly popular with the Samaritan Jews. While the Pharisees were waiting for a Messiah who would be a descendant of David, the Samaritans wanted a Messiah who would restore the northern kingdom of Israel. The Samaritans emphasized their partial descent from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who were descended from the Joseph of the Torah. The Samaritans considered themselves to be "Bnei Yoseph" i.e. "sons of Joseph," and since they believed that Jesus had been their Messiah, they would have assumed that he was a "son of Joseph." The Greek speaking population, who had little knowledge of Hebrew and true Jewish traditions, could have easily misunderstood this term and assumed that Joseph was the actual name of Jesus's father. This conjecture is corroborated by the fact that according to the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph's father is named Jacob, just like the Torah Joseph. Later, other Christians, who followed the idea that the Messiah was to be descended from David, tried to trace Joseph back to David. They came up with two contradictory genealogies for him, one recorded in Matthew and the other in Luke. When the idea that Mary was a virgin developed, the mythical Joseph was relegated to the position of simply being her husband and the stepfather of Jesus..."

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

----------------------------

Second Article: "The Jesus Narrative In The Talmud"

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

----------------------------

Of course, all of it is just preaching to the choir. People choose to believe or not to believe the story. Some don't know what to believe and are just covering all their bets.
I just wish that the believers weren't so adamant about shoving their beliefs down the throats of others. Are they that threatened by people who choose not to believe? :shrug:

And they are always the same, long and rambling so much that one can hardly grasp what is being said.
And always the same conclusion, that "there is no evidence" but in truth what they really mean is that there is no evidence that they believe is true.
And to cover that fact they pile on all kinds of junk science like "The book of Mark was not written by Mark but made up and we can tell by the style"
Or some assumptions like "Pontious Pilot was a despotic ruler" as if they could know such a thing.
I do wish that they would stick to the real reason that they do not believe Jesus was real and that is because of the miracles that the story tells of.
That we could talk about the rest of that stuff would require thousands of words and many hours to refute, which may be the reason they include it all in there studies.

who likes to watch those Discovery Channel shows that tells the story behind the myths. The articles listed in the OP serves the same purpose.

I really like the second article which deals the story of this very influential legend we know as Jesus and how perhaps he could be a product of a couple historical figures who lived a century earlier and the other a century later from the biblical figure.

A man that lived 2000 years ago yes?
but many live that long ago and you know noting of them and care not if they are a myth or not right?
And those many people have a 0 value to us because they had 0 effect on the world...they left no footprints.
So on a scale of one to ten Jesus is thought of as a 10, so lets start there and first establish whether he is a 10 or not.

We will set aside any question for the time of whether he is fiction, fact, composite of a few or an out-and-out sinister plot.

I say his teachings are a 10 as far as establishing a civilization that is free, open, and peacefully, and would challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

It's okay to follow Jesus ethical teachings even if Jesus is a fictional character. It's okay to be Christian and follow a religion based on Jesus as a person even if he never existed. I have no problems with that. But if you ask my opinion on having to have faith in a fictional character to achieve salvation then you might get a chuckle out of me. :-)

To say Jesus is the one who established a civilization that is free, open, and peaceful is to not being able to see outside the Christian lens. You could compare this attitude to ethnocentrism.

The reason why Jesus is such a big name is because it's been imposed (many times by force) and it is well marketed. Microsoft is the biggest software company and has a huge market share but I would not give a 10 to any of their products much less to them.

The morals and values our civilization holds today was rooted from many different sources. Christianity is one of them but not the most important. Other religions should have credit as well as secular sources.

Some native tribes who never had contact with biblical teachings had their own civilization with ethical teachings and never needed Jesus for that.

Some people who are born without any religious background, are atheists and are highly ethical.

Jews have the Torah (which is mostly fiction as admitted by most religious Jews and the Torah was established before Jesus) and follow it for its ethical teachings. No need for Jesus there to establish a civilization that is free, open, and peaceful. Jews have no problems following a book of metaphors because faith is not that important in Judaism.

But Christianity is based on faith and to question the existence of Jesus will get you a lot of defensive reaction and the need for a rebuttal. Like in your case, you got defensive.

Following Jesus example as a person, even if he is a fictional character, is fine and people have the right to follow his example and have a religion around that. But it is okay and healthy to question your beliefs otherwise you are in trouble.

To say Jesus is the one who established a civilization that is free, open, and peaceful is to not being able to see outside the Christian lens. You could compare this attitude to ethnocentrism.

Sadly, many Christians have it. As if Christianity was the sole source of culture and society. Guess all those millions of folks who lived before Jesus were just uncultured idiots living in anarchy, huh?

that Jesus was the basis for peaceful society? Odd, but I suppose a few exist. :shrug:

I thought "it" was referring to Christian "ethnocentrism." I've noticed a tendency to view other cultures through the lens of Christianity, such as the belief that all religions believe that anyone who disagrees will be eternally punished.

the view that Jesus is the one who established a civilization that is free, open, and peaceful.

:D

As I noted in the below post
I was talking about what would have been established if we had followed his teachings.

See, no two Christians in the past 2000 years have been able to agree precisely on what those teachings are.

What does Jesus teach us about homosexuality & gay marriage?

What about abortion?

Where does Jesus talk about freedom of religion, freedom of speech?

Where does Jesus condemn slavery?

Is Jesus the only way to heaven? Is there a hell?

Let me know when you have the One True Christian (TM) answer to all those, mkay?

It is the only place in the bible where Jesus is quoted directly.
And he addresses all of those issues in a simple manner that only ignorance of them could cause misunderstanding.
But take any quote from Jesus that you don't understand or thinks supports the fundie position and I will show how wrong that it is
But later I have to go to work now.

I asked you to explain these supposed teachings of Jesus, giving the ONE "true" answer. Don't just tell me he addressed them in a simple manner - tell me WHAT he said. Go ahead. Ball's in your court.

The mount
But most people don't get past the beatitudes and get to the end of it so here it is.

38. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45. That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47. And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Resist not evil?
Does that sound anything like the fundies of today?
Does it sound like he wants you or gay people to burn in hell?

If someone breaks in to your house, assaults you and your family, and takes your valuables, are going to keep turning the cheek or defend yourself? I would jump on the person's throat at the first chance I get to defend my family and myself from harm. Will you let your family suffer physical harm from the intruder so you don't have to hurt him yourself? What is so noble about that?

Jesus loses some points there with me.

How about if someone sues you to get your house are you going to give it to him/her? That is not right.

Love thy enemy? Should a person who was in the nazy camps love a nazy guard or kill him in order to escape saving himself/herself and his/her family?

Is there no line you would not cross?

But if someone strikes you because he does not like you or something you have done you can do three things, run away or turn the other cheek, or hit him back (At which point all moral reason breaks down and becomes chaos)
The truly brave man does not back down but turns the other cheek as a defiant gesture that does not lead to chaos.

And if you are sued at the law and louse do you still resist it and hold a grudge for the rest of your life?
Now if you win giving is not required.

I would not jump on the throat of someone who insulted me and I don't need Jesus or Christianity to tell me that. There were courts of justice before Jesus time that dealt with cases like this. They knew then that jumping at someone's throat just because of an insult is not the right behavior.

As far as the person hitting me, my choices would be to defend myself from harm and instead of turning the other cheek I would file charges for assault in quest for justice and to stop the aggressor from repeating his actions. The person who punched me wronged me and I will look for him/her to be reprimanded accordingly so perhaps the aggressor will not harm others in the future since he/she will learn that there are consequences (fines, community service, jail time, or whatever the law requires).
That is not turning the other cheek. "An eye for an eye..." is not meant to fix a wrong behavior with the same wrong behavior. "An eye for an eye..." is a metaphor used in Jewish law to give the appropriate punishment to the wrong behavior.

As far as forgiveness, I will not forgive the aggressor unless the aggressor has reg rests and sincerely asks me (not Jesus or God) for forgiveness.

If a black man is beaten to death in a hate crime and his insurance company wouldn't pay the widow any money since they conclude it was suicide, when clearly it wasn't, and a court of law favors the insurance company, should the wife not resist it and let it be? Where is the justice in that?

We have the laws in our country to deal with this exact thing and you would be wise to use them.
And that is also the message of Jesus
References on request because I gotta go)

The section you quote says to 'resist not evil' but instead to 'turn the other cheek'.
Not for me thanks. Throw a punch at me and I will resist it. Turn away, block, etc.

Not saying I will put you in the dirt. Just resist. To the degree I can I will protect all involved from any unnecisary pain and suffering, but I will not be turning my other cheek for you to hit me again.

FYI Defiant gestures DO have a nasty tendency to lead to chaos.

As for
"And if you are sued at the law and louse do you still resist it and hold a grudge for the rest of your life?"
No... would YOU pay double what the court award was if you lost?

Or else you're not a true Christian (v. 42).

Luke 6:30 states that give to any that ask of you and of those who take your goods away do not demand them back.

The proper way is to say, "Can I have $1000?" Demanding it gives them an out.

We can either say please give me $10,000
or
Just take $10,000 form him and he should not demand it back right?

But keep in mind I have only ever encountered one Christian that did not turn their back on this particular teaching of Jesus when confronted with it. So the taking option will net you a win in the proving hypocracy column but will also net you a loss in the days spent out of jail column.

the request version is legal.

I wish I could find someone who was willing to say 'sure' to my request for ten grand.

You're evading my questions. I can only assume this means you do not know the answers.

Is homosexuality a sin?

Is abortion?

I want to know the TRUE Christian answers to these and other questions.

I do know that one of the criticism of Jesus by the religious community at the time was that he hung out with sinners. I guess if the religious community considered them a sin then they were among the ones Jesus associated with.

Mathew 7;
1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Or as Luke put it

37. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

And in John
47. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

How can that be, if you don't know what the teachings are? The guy didn't say anything about a whole host of moral issues that certainly prevent us from having as peaceful a society as we could.

So do you retract your earlier statement, or do you want to qualify it?

They are not to judge what others do and to pay attention to what YOU do.
If you feel that homosexuality is a sin then you will probably be judged by that belief.but just because you believe it does not put that judgment on others?
( I didn't actually mean you personally)

My statement stands un retracted.

Murder? Rape?

Any society set up on the principle "thou shalt not judge" would collapse in chaos. This is absurd! Your claim makes no sense whatsoever, and your limited attempts to expand upon it have yielded nothing but more confusion.

And why do you suppose all civilizations had some kind of system set up for just that purpose to judge and condemn with a sentence those people whose conduct threatens the general populace?
To fairly judge. It is there job to do that. And I have judged actually 6 times when required to by the jury system.
There is a time and place for judgment but not in the mind.

You said his teachings could form the basis of a peaceful, etc. society. Now you're adding creations of humans. Can you make up your mind?

He left it purely up to us.
the reference would be his famous "render to Ceasar..." if you want to get into that.
Jesus and his disciples were ethe first Communists themselves, but he advocated no government at all nor any form of Kingdom ie "My kingdom is not of this world"

Glad that's settled.

Are you wanting to put the words of fools like Jerry Falwell in my mouth?

First off, there is no agreement on what "Jesus' teachings" are. You have admitted this.

Secondly, whatever you choose to pick as his teachings, are incomplete as a basis for a society. You have also admitted this.

So your initial statement was incorrect. You have been proven wrong.

I am saying that ANY economic or social system based on the teachings of Jesus will work that is any one that does not automatically by there nature, reject his teachings like the Nazis or Stalinist.
I agree that we do not agree on what his teachings are but not that I don't know what they are. And I have been telling you that all along. No mystery to it, all in Mathew Mark Luke and John.

but you know what they are. Amazing. But whether you acknowledge it or not, your original statement has been proven wrong.

It is a self fulfilling prophesy to say that I don;t agree therefor "no one can agree"

That's a novel concept.

How could that be an exemption?

How can a person be relieved of his or her duty to obey the command of Jesus not to judge? It seems to me that only God could grant that exemption, not mankind. But you seem to be saying that any juror is absolved from his duty to obey Jesus because of a civic duty to mankind. Doesn't this make mankind superior to God? If mankind has the right to overrule the "judge not" order, what other orders might be overruled?

like this in Mark 2

23. And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25. And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26. How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27. And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:


And likewise the law was made for man not man for the law.

With no jeopardy attached?

Mathew 7;
1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

It sure seems like a paradox to me.

If you can't see the difference between the spiritual and the material. between rules and commandments and common sense.
The material world requires things of us like being on a jury to judge material things. The spiritual world requires us not to judge for our own sake, so that we may truly love our neighbor and not despise him with the judgment of his life.

You can make the Bible say anything you want it to say without even moving your lips.

But I never fail to use the text in context to do it.

I point to Native American religions who follow many of them and recognize today Jesus as a powerful profit
Or Gandhi and many Eastern mystical religions.

What do you mean by, "I point to Native American religions who follow many of them?" Pronoun confusion obscures meaning, as evidenced by the exchange between trotsky and I.

Navajo and Hopi are the ones I am familiar with
And would recommend the Book of Hopi and Black Elk Speaks and The Sacred Pipe.

I'm trying to figure out what your point was.

I did not say Jesus established anything. it should be obvious to all here that we do not have a civilization that is open and free and full of peace anywhere on this earth.
I said that as a VALUE his teachings are a ten on the one to ten scale and again state that I can defend each and every teaching in Mathew Mark Luke and John as a model for it.
I want to narrow the discussion to that so we can judge it objectively instead of trying to just undermine it with trivia like who wrote Mark.
It is OK if you don;t want to do this, Most fundies are scared to death to talk about the teachings of Jesus because it shows them for what they are, so there's no shame in it for the non believer.

Mark 16:15-16
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

I don't believe. Jesus here condemned me to hell. Still insistent on that "10" rating?

I guess the "10" is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, he is a nice guy and all but only until statements like this which shows that he is not worthy of anybody's worship.

To condemn now has a rather bad connotation but if you look up the literal meaning of what was said it comes out like this.

Srong's Ref. # 2632

Romanized katakrino
Pronounced kat-ak-ree'-no

from GSN2596 and GSN2919; to judge against, i.e. sentence:

KJV--condemn, damn.

And remember also that this part is where he gives his disciples instructions for them and there work. And if you look at the same place in Mathew 28 it reads in a much less threating (to you) manner

18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

So what I am saying is don't make a big deal out of that word. Jesus spoke clearly on condemnation in several places and he was clearly not one to do it, nor did he teach his disciples to do so.

:eyes:

Do you believe those who are not Christians are damned? Judged? Sentenced to hell?

What about those of us who do NOT want to be baptized? What about that parable with the king representing Jesus who said to bring those who would not have him rule over them, and slay them?

in John 12

47. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

And in other places...see post 53

What parable are you talking about? I know of no parrable where Jesus was represent as a king.

"The same shall judge him" - again reinforcing that those who do not accept Jesus will be judged (and quite obviously condemned).

See Luke 19:27. "But bring those enemies of mine who didn't want me to reign over them here, and kill them before me."

"The words that I have spoken"
And does that not mean that if his words are true then you will be judged wrong and if they are false right?
Is there really that much to fear from being wrong?
Will you go to hell for being wrong? only if we all go together because all of us are wrong on some level.

On parables it is always helpful to look for a statement on what it is about;

11. And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

Now with that in mind do you see that the story is not about Jesus at all?
It is about how the Kingdom of Christ will come about and he predicted a rocky road for sure, but hasn't it been that so far?

And rejecting Jesus is one big ol' strike against you, in Big Daddy's book. See, people like you who are liberal, tolerant believers, reject the parts of the bible that stress judgment and vengeance. When confronted with them, you deny they're there, or deny the obvious interpretation, in order to protect how YOU think god really works.

Now with that in mind do you see that the story is not about Jesus at all?

Umm, yeah, because I kind of made that point in the first place. Hello?

I reject your inference that every part of the bible is a commandment or a rule. ( and so also the majority of organized religions today)
It is all a story told and one does not make a rule of a whole story whether it is true or not.
The rules if you are looking for them are just what He said they were "Judge Not"


But did you know that the parable was about the Kingdom of Christ and how it would come about?

You reject parts of the bible BY declaring those parts "a story." A cowpie by any other name would stink just as bad.

Regarding the parable, yes, it seems quite clear that it's about the "Kingdom of Christ" and how those who reject Jesus will be judged harshly and punished. Are you disagreeing with that?

And what is the book of Psalms if not a collection of songs?
Or the book of Deuteronomy but a book of laws?

Trotsky that parable is not about you and not about me ether it is about the servants of the master and what the master ex[expects of them.

There is no record of a mass departure of Jewish slaves from Egypt. There is no archaeological evidence of a 40-year journey through the desert. It's a story, yes, but not a historical one. And if the parable is not about us, then who are the servants?

Knowing that you would object.

The servants are the disciples of Jesus who he left in charge while he was away (in the spiritual world ) getting his kingdom.

I can see you have your own interpretation of the parable that doesn't address the problem at all (SOMEONE is gonna get in big trouble and punished by your god), and we're not going to go anywhere from there. But at least you've admitted that "Jesus' teachings" (whatever they are) are not adequate in and of themselves for establishing a society.

of an actual thing right?
It was a story in terms they could understan....a king charging his servants and punishing like a king would do. to make the point of what he expected from them.

And to be precise I would say that his teachings combined with any economic social system will work.
Is it not better that way than having one imposed on you?

You have now tempered your position, essentially admitting your original claim was wrong. No use in quibbling further about just how to interpret a parable.

i wouldn't even dare to try to explain what Jesus meant, being a guy who failed kindergarten, but it seems
'good news' = love, and we are loved by our creator, who watches over us all the time...
'creation'= everything we as individual persons are ever aware of, either physically or intellectually...
'believe'= to accept w/out fear that we are taken care of, by a loving creator, no matter what we do...
'baptised'= go through a process both mental and emotional where all the evidence that creation, life or our enemy is evil is rejected, and replaced by 'faith' in the opposite....
'saved'= you have private contact with the creator, or 'god' iow you're friends with god; s/he trusts/depends on you, and you trust/depend on 'god'
'condemned'= you choose to say 'fukk you world, leave me alone' etc...you eat drink and be merry; creation can go to hell as far as you're concerned :(

something remarkable i read recently, i can't even recall where mentions (to paraphrase) that 'god' really does trust humanity, and puts creation, in the form of you/me, each individual, on the line - that person can say 'god doesn't exist' or 'god is a pizza i just ate haha' or 'i hate god' or 'god wants me to murder that family' or so on. we think of god as almighty and eternal, but if we despise him, or creation, or if we choose to see god as a monster, then god's powerless.
it sounds hokey, but it seemed very striking, at the time....

That the book of Mark was not written by the "person" Mark is pretty much a given, it's not junk science. Paul wrote his own stuff, and wrote it the earliest. But the Gospels weren't written down until well after, and certainly not by the men whose names they bear.

"But the Gospels weren't written down until well after, and certainly not by the men whose names they bear."

There is no way you can prove that statement with any certainty.

You ore no one today could have said with certainty that Mark could not write, or that he never wrote it down himself or dictated history to a scribe and was later copied by some one 100 years later because the original was falling apart, now can you.

Is that proof that the Gospel character Mark did?

Look, it's a pretty solid opinion among biblical scholars that the Gospels were not penned until at least 70 CE, perhaps not until into the 2nd century CE. Doesn't shake their faith to admit it, it shouldn't shake yours.

There is one (or more) mentioned in Acts and Paul's letters, but that doesn't mean he has to have been around at the time of the Gospels (1st mention is "the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark", after Paul had already converted to Christianity, so if his mother was still alive then, he could have easily lived to 70 CE).

Always mix those up.

They can;t know that no more than I can ever claim to know anything about Pluto.
I can guess, I can surmise, I can even believe but it is only faith in something like your intellect or the intellect of others that you believe.
And to Quote Jesus:
A tree is known by the fruit it bears.
My question to you is whether that fruit of his teachings (not the fruit of Christianity) would be sweet or not.
And if not where is it bitter to you?

I'm all for skepticism, but it seems somewhat funny when the skeptic is casting doubt on something with far more evidence than what the skeptic in question is defending.

No it is to make a point.
That what they see as an enemy is not at all but there real friend...knoledge of just what His teachings were all about.
It is not that scary a thing.

Care to repeat that with a tad more care with your words?

I am just saying that the teachings of Jesus would most probably be acceptable to the vast majority of progressives and if the atheist really want to put the christians in there place the words of Jesus does it very well.
And they will never know it because they cannot get beyond the faith they have in it all being a myth and actually examine the teachings on there own merit.
Sorry for any mistakes because I am typing like mad right now..

rather than actually believe the story. Then again, there are many that believe the story but do not follow the teachings.

In my studies I have found that many of the teachings I admire are not unique to christianity and most predate the supposed birth of Jesus. Same with the mythological concepts.

Myths, fables, parables, and even fairy tales are meant to frame concepts such as morality, justice, etc.. in understandable terms to a diverse audience.

Questioning whether Jesus existed has been common since the first century/early second. It seems more prominent now only because it is no longer illegal or subject to death to question.

And you are right most of the teachings of Jesus can be found in Eastern mysticism and even in Native american religions.

And in fact there is evidence that Jesus traveled to Tibet and studied there with the masters.

But just because there are myths and fables don't assume that everything of a supernatural nature is one.

should be questioned.

To do otherwise is irrational, immature and dangerous.

And I have questioned it all of my life.
And if you look hard enough you can find the truth and it will set you free.

Sorry but thats a new one on me. I am still having trouble seeing serious historical evidence that Jeasus (as portrayed in the bible) existed.
I have never heard anything about him going to Tibet could you provide a link or something?

They find links between eastern thought and Jesus' teachings and begin to make connections. The thing of it is that the connection is human nature. All philosophies focus on human nature. It should not be suprising when two disperate philosophies stumble upon similar ideas. Its like two people looking at the same painting and coming up with similar comments.

after realizing that, if you take away the aspects of the story that require total faith to believe in--in other words, the miraculous, supernatural aspects--you're left with virtually nothing but quotes, and even those might have been cribbed from Stoicism. When you start looking into historical evidence outside the Gospels, there's much less. After a while, it becomes more economical to believe that Jesus is myth. It really does require pure faith to believe in him--even his "human" side. If you're a Christian, it makes sense that faith is good enough for you. But for non-Christians, you should want to have more evidence than exists.

that's the problem when one's trying to carry the water o truth somewhere. you aint the first person who wondered about the historicity of jesus. or his nature. or his divinity. indeed, everything we are told has been hammered out, over the ages by people (the ole joke about 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' isn't just rhetoric- i betcha vast camps of learned theologians have debated exactly that!) the point is, and anyone who has lived knows this - who are we? what happened to cause us to exist? why did god do it? thousands of years has gone into finding the answers, and no grouping of peoples hasn't tried to find out. christianity has certainly gone farther, in terms of lives touched, human societies transformed (in many cases murdered) then any other! why? what makes this particular religion so powerful in terms of its impact on us? you say that jesus probably was/is myth. But by doing so, you automatically deny whatever it is that caused history to unfold as it did, because w/out the person jesus at the beginning, then everything we see is basically fake, or happenstance. i once spent an entire afternoon reading the encyclopedia britanica's entry on 'jesus christ'...the subject is a quarter inch of pages. The detail is staggering, necessarily summing up what's known about the new testament, and all the various 'heresies' that grew up (one heresy believed that jesus wasn't human in regards body functions or desires etc- he appeared as a human but none o that sordid stuff like xxx or so on. the church denounced this because it was really human shame that wanted to believe jesus wasn't human, they were embarassed at it, so tried to deny it!)...after reading for several hours, the article ended with a single brief sentence, to wit- regardless of all the controversy surrounding this person, this jesus, one thing cannot be denied. 2000 years ago, SOMETHING caused a small group of palestinian jews to found a religion that has never stopped growing (and that something wasn't a myth).

that there is only one reference to "Jesus" in a contempory historical document by Josephus?

And that it's not clear that it refers to the Jesus plus it's also possible that the document was amended at a later date?

religions and the anathema of Muslims are valid points of contemporary political discussion, but not a revision of the existence of a prophet using a handful of sources.

For example, the bishop Polycarp left documents adressing his lineage. Polycarp was taught by John. John was a disciple of Jesus Christ.

I guess Polycarp was the disciple of a non-existent person, then by the poster's reasoning.

Not merely Polycarp, but other Roman Era documents mention the second/third generation disciples...

Correct me if I'm wrong. I thought he was clearly not a disciple of Jesus and had never met Jesus.

The only apostles who were authors were John and Peter and Matthew. Paul met Jeusus in a vision only after his trip to Damascus to persecute Jesus' followers. Mark was contmp. with Paul, and may or may not have met Christ. He was clearly 2nd generation.
Luke probably did not. He is mentioned as a follower of Paul during his travels and also wrote Acts of the Apostles. John was James' brother and both were authors and apostles. Matthew was a follower of Jesus, an apostle, and by tradition, the first Evangelist (author of a Gospel).

So, by tradition, there are three authors who were direct followers of Jesus and not of the later apostles, being apostles themselves.

Polycarp directly records that John taught him and that John was an apostle. From Polycarp directly descends the French Church.

Paul was basicly "anointed by God ex post facto" in a vision to have seen Christ, as it was a requirement to be an apostle. Most of the Bible outside of the Gospels and Acts and Revelation is written by his followers or him, the "Pauline Letters", eg., Timothy, Corinthians, etc.

How would Polycarp know if John was an Apostle? How do we know that that John is the person (or among the persons) who wrote the Gospel?

I didn't think so but since it might challenge your beliefs then you would have to challenge it.

First of all, Polycarp was born years after Jesus' supposed death.

Second, which John he was a disciple of is also pretty hazy. It is not historically proven that Polycarp knew the actual John, the supposed "apostle of Christ".

Whatever Polycarp left is no proof that John was the disciple of Jesus much less that a historical Jesus existed.

Lost in the whole debate over who wrote what Gospels, and when, is the question of: Why didn't Jesus write anything down himself? Not a scrap, not a shred of anything. If you're going to argue that later humans would have corrupted it anyway, well so be it, but at least there would have been an original, god-authored manuscript to go back to. What we ended up with is sort of a "Bah, they'll fuck it up anyway so we might as well let them write all this down a generation, two, or three after the fact!"

so some say.lol

How literate were 1st century Judean fishermen?

who are purportedly divine? Can god read?

Besides, I thought Jesus was a carpenter?

.. a text called "The Quest of the Historical Jesus":



So the Christian theologians have understood the historicity issue for over a hundred years, since in fact the historical problem was recognized well before Schweitzer wrote at the beginning of the twentieth century. Schweitzer's answer to the problem is somewhat limited by his own historical epoch, but his basic insight remains -- that appealing to history cannot solve for us our own problem, which is the need to live according to the spirit in our own present time and that the Jesus we might seek by history could be nothing more than a strange and elusive figure. As opposed to the spirit Resurrected in our lives, the historical figure really could not help us in our present need.

Absense of knowledge is not knowledge of absense. Lack of evidence of Jesus' existance does not allow us to claim he did not exist. It merely allows us to cast skepticism on the Christians claims and state that they are unsupported. This merely means we do not have to accept their claims logically speaking. It does not mean their claims are refuted.

It goes deeper than simply the absence of direct evidence. The person portrayed by the NT and church did not say nor do the things attributed to him.(as well as many other figures written about.) There were many that did say and do some of the things described however.


In addition, I think it is important to challenge those who assert that he did exist to do a bit of research. The history, anthropology and archaeology knowledge gained in the quest is priceless.

I am in the Jesus was created camp. But I do not believe we have sufficient evidence to make the case as yet. We certainly have some interesting evidence. But to be fair I think we need more.

So yes, challenge the assumption that Jesus was a historical figure. Make people realise that we have absolutely nothing written about Jesus the man set to paper during his actual life. Make them aware of the history of their actual doctrine. But do not over extend and make claims that we cannot yet fully support.

to say that reguardless of wither 'AN' historical Jeasus existed 'THE' historical Jeasus probobly did not inthat it is very unlikely that we would have no record of some of the events he is discribed as having taken part in.

Something alone these lines.
Jeasus as a charactor - Exists
Someone who was a model for the biblical Jeasus - posibly/unknowable
The biblical Jeasus - unlikely in the extreme

Something with consequences just as real as anything leaving some sort of physical evidence.

Nothing exists "historically," well nothing except the stories.

You might infer what some historical figure might have been about, say Benjamin Franklin, but you can't fully separate the stories -- so many stories Franklin himself embellished and promoted -- from his "historical existence."

Most often we draw meanings from the stories we have been told, not from the physical evidence. The creation of a new story from raw physical evidence is actually a very rare process compared to the simple transmission of stories already created.

Much of what you "know" about historical figures, especially colorful characters like Benjamin Franklin, is pure fabrication. But the meanings you draw from these stories are just as real as something you can touch.

You might wish that all stories be based in some sort of scientific principles, sort of like the Vulcan society of Star Trek, but the human mind is probably not capable of that. There are far too many things influencing human behavior that cannot be described in scientific terms.

But when people use the stories to persecute others the validity of the stories and authority becomes an issue. And that is the situation we have regarding the histirocity of Jesus.

By arguing about the "validity" of the story?

It doesn't happen.

I can wear my rainbow flag and my Social Justice Catholicism and my Scientific training simultaneously, and I do, but it's a long hard road changing the stories by which people live by.

A deeply confrontational approach is sometimes required, as in the issues of keeping religion out of the science curriculum, and especially GLBT civil rights, but issues of "validity" and "authority" are only useful when arguing with people who have agreed to argue by those issues. You are never going to convince some people that evolution is the foundation of biology, or that laws against gay marriage are every bit as odious as miscegenation laws were.

More important than validity or authority is simple visibility. Generally the more truthful stories will be accepted by those who have not closed their minds. But the truthful stories have to be visible. Someone who has been exposed to an honest telling of Biology (which is a surprisingly rare thing in U.S. schools) will tend not to embrace Creationism, and somebody who has gay couples as friends or aquaintences will tend to recognize gay marriage as a basic civil right.

but I agree with the rest of your post.

We must remember there are still many people who have never actually met a homosexual(that they know of) and have been quite sheltered from many of the facts of science, history and sociology we are aware of. There are those that believe it is a sin to even doubt what their parents or preachers have told them.

Some people are more open than others. I would not waste my time trying to convince a creationist. But if there were other people present during our conversation I could use the creationist to show how ill informed they are of their own religion and thus poison the well for them convincing any others. Know your audience and you know what you can and cannot achieve in a debate.

to cull through everthing.

Benjamin Franklin is well documented as an historical figure. I do agree stories about him should be taken with a grain of salt without verification but we have letters he wrote, letters other wrote to him, papers upon papers to establish who he was.

I would like to point out that people are not willing to die or kill based on their beliefs regarding a few select stories about Ben.

Human behavior can totally be described in scientific/natural terms.

Franklin is well documented as existing. But there are other figures in history that are not as well documented that we accept as having existed. Homer leaps to mind. We have nothing concerning his actual life. He never set anything to page himself. No historical references exist concerning his activities other than the texts attributed to him. But we accept that he exists because there is no serious issue currently concering an autoritative claim based on his existance.

Jesus is different. Authority is derrived from the words attributed to him and they are based on the necessity of his existance. As such the lack of historicity of his existance is a serious problem that is largely glossed over by most of his supporters. We cannot just assume he existed as we do with Homer. Not when the nature of the world hangs in the balance.

but I do not think he was historical. His later movement was historical though. Shakespeare is another similar case.(another quest that is worth it just for the Elizabethian history one learns along the way.)

It has been done throughout the ages and continues to this day in the publishing world.

whose very being violates the laws of physics and Nature the rest of us are subject too. The Christian is comfortable with this alleged violation. Belief in it is the essence of Christianity. Most others, however, choose to assume that the Christ Christians believe in is merely an exaggeration of a real person whose being was subject to the laws we're all subject to.

I agree with you and Az: There is no good evidence such a human basis for the Christ myth existed historically. This may be true of the Homer "myth" as well, if you will. But not many people claim to have an inkling of Homer's biography (outside of his being blind, and I don't know why this is conventionally believed about him). But the story of Jesus, which is ripe with religious symbolism through and through, is taken as "fact," even by many historians, who know that even the aspects in the story that go beyond Jesus--such as the setting, the development of the religion among Jews and gentiles, the cast of characters around Jesus, the political clues about "when" the story allegedly took place--are historically weak. Cultural faith in the Jesus myth as history is damaging to the study of history in a way that is unique to the Jesus myth, as compared to other possible myths.

A myth that's been even deadlier than Christianity is the myth of the white race. That particular myth has left this world in ruins.

In the modern world I think the myth of the United States is more "damaging to the study of history" than the Jesus myth.

Most people graduate from U.S. high schools knowing nothing of science or history, knowing only myths masquerading as science and history.

Yes, our current indoctrination process in the US is damaging. And we may be leading up to a new Dark Ages. But we will have to plunge the world into a 1500 year period of Darkness and ignorance to match our historical predicessors. I also believe the damage we are doing is tied to the NeoCon political movement and the teachings of Leo Strauss. Hopefully the repubs are waking up to just how damaging their agenda is are are ready to purge themself of their taint. So we may see a return to sanity in the near future. I won't hold my breath mind you. But I can hope.

... isn't he?

I don't believe that "Human behavior can totally be described in scientific/natural terms."

Even subjects firmly rooted in science, such as modern medicine, are still arts, not sciences. Why are some families healthy and functional, while others are unhealthy and dysfunctional? Extend that uncertainty out to communities, to nations, to the human society of earth. There are too many variables to describe it adequately in scientific/natural terms. We are flying blind.

That's not to say we have small little enclaves of knowledge concerning human behavior that are expanding ever so slowly, but for the most part we live by stories, not by science.

And the stories about Ben, and all the other myths about the inate goodness and greatness of the United States have killed millions of people, starting with the Native Americans and continuing into Iraq today.

That connection is easily made.

Silence Dogood, Richard Saunders... Ben Franklin made use of pen names throughout his life. Those are part of his history.

But you can call me hunter here, or face to face.

We do not have absolute knowledge. Keep in mind we are born blind and screaming into this world and have to struggle every day to figure out what the heck is going on. I mean cripe. When we are first born we do not even have a concept of self.

So yeah. Ignorance is our starting condition. But certain traits of our species allow us to accumulate knowledge. And slowly but surely we are driving back the darkness. There still is much to reveal but the things we have discovered are astounding.

than what humans say or think happened?

What humans think or say about history, apart from being nonuniform from person to person, changes from moment to moment. What really happened is presumably immutable. It is the grail historians ought to be going after, I think.

I'd say because it informs us about what we can expect for the future, as well as explaining to us why people are were they are now.

I'm curious whether you watch The Simpsons, and whether you ever saw the episode dealing with the history of Jebidiah Springfield? Basically, the founder of Springfield was held to be a hero, but Lisa did a significant amount of research on him and discovered that he was in fact a pirate who attempted to kill George Washington. She had been trying to convince the town that she was right all along (suffering a fair bit for her efforts) but eventually relented. It was not the town's animus towards her research that led her to give up, but rather her decision that the myth was more important than the historical truth.

My perspective on the religious utility of stories might skew my perspective on the matter, though.

;)

Verily, the point is debatable, or we wouldn't be debating it. I, personally, am uncomfortable with the idea that the truth ought to be supressed if the people can't handle it.

So I don't think I'd get on board with suppressing the truth. I was just disagreeing that what actually happened is inherently more important than the story of what happened. At the risk of sounding completely idiotic by citing another TV show, the "Jaynestown" episode of Firefly is another good example of this.

Namely blindness. You do not know within a belief what it may be blinding you to. It may be a more prosperous and enlightening path or it may simply be you miss the prescipice before you and tumble off the trail.

Yes religion has utility. But there are other ways that have bourn people upon its shoulders and they do not have the built in blindness of faith.

"My perspective on the religious utility of stories might skew my perspective on the matter, though."

You think?

Its hard to learn history's lessons if you use made up history that was largely invented to convey a particular lesson. You are only going to learn what the author wanted you to.
Its like studying US history from an average high school history book and then saying well it doesn't matter if this is heavily skewed, edited, and sometimes outright wrong... we can learn XYZ from these stories regardless.

The main reason Atheists care about religion is because it fucks up our lives. And the main reason we care about biblical accuracy is because the false stories in the bible are used to fuck up our lives. That and genuine historical interest.

I'm trying to figure out how that works... and maybe wishing I could write like that!

I always try to look for the outside perspective when I read; I try to figure out what the author is about. I imagine my own perception of the author is often radically different than the author's perception of themselves. What I learn from twisted souls like, say Ezekiel or Paul, is often not what they "wanted" me to learn.

Sometimes I can say to myself, "Wow, I've met people like that -- those poor tormented souls..."

seems to have been there, to judge from the early Christian movement that resulted.

But Whoever it was, was not understood by His immediate contemporaries, if one believes what is written in the gospels. Or, if you prefer, without very much in the way of belief, one can also see that He has not been understood by the Churches that followed, to judge from the endless doctrinal squabbling that continues to occupy countless hours.

Schweitzer's point is that the historical method can only ever produce ancient dust and cannot help us to encounter Life here and now.

"Schweitzer's point is that the historical method can only ever produce ancient dust and cannot help us to encounter Life here and now."

That's a personal opinion. I find ancient dust to be rather fascinating and a way to find theories for how we got here to where we are in the present. :-)

... life, it cannot call spiritual life into existence. History can destroy the present; it can reconcile the present with the past; can even to a certain extent transport the present into the past; but to contribute to the making of the present is not given unto it ..."
as Schweitzer wrote in the excerpt given in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=99723&mesg_id=99899

This is not a dismissal of historical research but it provides some indication of the somewhat limited benefits that the study of historical materials provides.

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with the idea that we can learn from the past: Bacon said, the ancients were children compared to ourselves, because we know their history. Nor is anything wrong with the idea that the past sheds some light on the present. But it is a faltering light, depending largely on our own invention of anachronistic interpretations of the past. Our interpretations would have sounded strange and foreign to those who lived the past that we are now interpreting -- and will again sound strange and foreign to our successors who will also have the privilege of interpreting us.

But ancient dust is still ancient dust. As the Taoist said: Footprints are made by feet but are not feet. The study of footprints in ancient dust may be informative and interesting and even illuminating -- but it is not, and cannot be, a substitute for our own feet and our own walking. Ancient dust does not solve for us our most urgent and fundamental problem, the problem of living our own lives fully: for that, one must seek elsewhere.