The fabrication of Jesus.

[Elijah John]

Some go beyond the theory that a real, human Jesus existed and was later mythologized into the Divine person of "Christ".

Some hold that Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all, even as a completely human person.

For debate:

-Why would anyone have invented the tale that Jesus existed?

-Who "invented" Jesus, and why?

[historia]

Recall Luke's foray into the genealogical wilderness with:


Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,

etc. etc. etc.... ...... the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

It's not clear to me what you think this demonstrates.

Luke was a devotee of Paul, ergo what Paul said was truth.

That doesn't preclude Luke from corroborating Paul's account. The fact that Acts agrees in broad outlines, while also disagreeing with various details, of Paul's own account strongly suggests that Luke did not get his information directly from Paul.

[FarWanderer]

All we can say is it is possible a preacher called Jesus did exist.

it is probable that Jesus existed.

I'm always happy to accept a correction of an earlier comment.

Of course, if what you are saying is that it is probable or likely that Jesus of Nazareth existed, then this effectively undercuts your original comparison of him to Isis and Zeus (in post post 32), as those latter figures likely weren't historical persons. And leaves you in essential agreement with Liam.

Surely you realize that the man and the legend don't have to be the same.

[marco]

Of course, if what you are saying is that it is probable or likely that Jesus of Nazareth existed, then this effectively undercuts your original comparison of him to Isis and Zeus (in post post 32), as those latter figures likely weren't historical persons. And leaves you in essential agreement with Liam.

In that post I was making the point that we can have millions of followers of a belief even though the foundation is mythical. History has something to say about the early Christians, but that does not contribute to a proof that Christ was real, as Zeus and Isis show. When the material we have to consider speaks of angels at his birth, raised corpses in his tiny window of appearance, resurrection from the dead and ascension into the sky we are entitled to propose the character is unreal. It is a generous concession to say he was possibly real, probably real or there was a likelihood of his being a real person. What we cannot say is that claims he was unreal crash against history. They don't.

[marco]

That doesn't preclude Luke from corroborating Paul's account. The fact that Acts agrees in broad outlines, while also disagreeing with various details, of Paul's own account strongly suggests that Luke did not get his information directly from Paul.

If Luke can fabricate a genealogy for Jesus, what value does he have as a witness for some other statement regarding Christ and Paul? He gives us details of a census at Christ's birth and we can find discrepancies in his narrative, not to mention his record of angels talking to shepherds. And when you find disagreement in details you generously suppose Luke got his information from a proper source rather from the same source from which he extracted Adam's birth certificate and the conversation with angels.

It is easy to undermine Luke as a reliable witness to anything.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 49 by historia]

Point of order:
Zeus began as Ra, and was based on a pharaoh and this is true of many Egyptian gods, they are based on real people. Cheops, for example was deified - Amun identified himself with Ra.
This practice would continue up to the Caesars, and of course, any alleged Jesus, did the same - identifying himself with Yahweh.

It is interesting to note that Jewish culture says avatars or demigods are impossible, and don't worship Jesus, while Hellenic culture does accept this and does worship Jesus.

[DPMartin]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Why Jesus (and Christianity) was invented can be seen in exactly what he preached, and who benefited from it.

He preached that is was OK to pay Imperial taxes: Despite the coins being graven images of other gods, whose worship, by decrees was their tribute.
- I know I know, but the Jews didn't believe Caesar was a god so it was OK: So Yahweh only minds if you put REAL gods before him, fake gods are OK?

Rome learned in 300 BCE that religion was a powerful persuasive and pacifying agent. They began developing it. Saying ours god are your gods, and they say we should rule, so obey us (the pre-Christian divine right of kings). Developed reached good enough to fool most of the people most of the time status around 0 CE.

Christianity preaches obeying government, an being passive when wronged, great tools for a government.

if you are against the nation you are in then you don't belong there, religion or not. certainly religion isn't a excuse to rebel against your own home, or the nation you are in.

[1213]

In answer, I can only agree with you: I am sure Yahweh doesn't mind you putting false gods before him, and worshiping those false idols.

Sorry, giving caesars money to ceasar is not same as putting false god before the one and only true God.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 56 by 1213]

Thats what Satan wants you to think.
Do you think Yahway wants you to pay tribute to the false god Caesar? Which gods does he not want you to pay tribute to?

[historia]

Surely you realize that the man and the legend don't have to be the same.

Of course. The question presently under consideration is simply whether Jesus existed or not.

[Inigo Montoya]

Surely you realize that the man and the legend don't have to be the same.

Of course. The question presently under consideration is simply whether Jesus existed or not.

Indeed. And "maybe" or "possibly" or "probably" seem like responsibly neutral-ish answers. What I have to be content with is never hearing how the historian not only came to accept the historical person, but also came to accept the biblical version is true. I'm curious if you've ever shared that. A link to a past response would suffice, if you would, and if you have, so I don't derail putting you on the spot in this thread.