Did Jesus exist? (Replaces earlier poll)

[Zzyzx]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural " only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

[Blastcat]

.
Did Jesus live 2000 years ago, preach for a few years, and get executed?

This is NOT asking if you accept that he performed miracles or was supernatural " only that he existed, preached, was executed.

All are encouraged to explain why they do or do not accept



This thread / poll replaces an earlier one that was poorly worded.

Apologies to those who contributed to the previous thread (which is now in the Trash Can)

This might come off as a bit rude, but I would ask this question:

Did a guy called "bob" exist as a historical person?

To which... I would answer "I suppose so, but I don't care. What's your point?"

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 20 by Kapyong]


Moderator Warning


Hello Kapyong! You have been warned at least once to not make personal comments against another poster, yet you continue to do so. I am positive that you can make valid arguments without being condescending to other forum members.

Thank you!


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[OnceConvinced]

It seems to me that Jesus most likely did exist. However the stories about him are most likely exaggerated or made up.

That is just the way I see it now, although 10 years ago I would have said to you without a doubt Jesus did exist and he did do the things the bible says he did.

[tfvespasianus]

Here we clearly see that Paul believed that Jesus was a Jew who had come into the world to fulfill God's purpose as the messiah. He says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), and that "when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" (Galatians 4:4).

historia,

First and foremost, I sincerely commend your command of the material. That is, you obviously have much more than a passing familiarity with the material with which you may disagree. Moreover, it's my opinion that you are treating it in a relatively dispassionate manner. Again, I think that's exceptional.

However, I am genuinely curious as to your justification for Galatians 4:4. To me, it is often trotted out by apologists to justify orthodox view, but in my opinion, it does precisely the opposite. That is, when would one ever have to mention that someone had a mother? If I was writing anything of substance on someone's biography (something you posited elsewhere that adherents were already intimately aware of; a fragile point, but perhaps I will address in a later post) I would NOT feel any need to remark that someone had a mother.

Unless there were a great many people that felt the contrary. If we are to posit an early date for the composition of the Pauline epistles (I am by no means wholly convinced by the standard arguments for dating based on internal evidence, but would be fine accepting such for the sake of argument), then we are conceding that ONE generation after Jesus walking around on this planet many people thought that he didn't have a mom. Either that or it's an interpolation. I am assuming you accept that at least some interpolation has occurred in the Pauline corpus given the documentary evidence. Moreover, if we concede (not to appeal to authority, but it's done a lot around here) that the earliest compilers of the Pauline letters were the Marcionites as posited by scholars, what does that do to our reliance on something like Galatians 4:4 as a foundational argument?

Take care,
TFV

[Willum]

[Replying to tfvespasianus]

Curious, Jesus couldn't be Jewish because Jewish is the religion he came to overthrow. He did not practice Sadducee-ism religion, nor Pharisee -ism, but disparaged both. Or can you tell me which sections particularly he kept?
On the other hand, if you are using the idea of genetics, then he was half-Jewish, the other half would have to sparkling God-DNA. Since there are no definiative Jewish genes, you are left with another problem: Especially since Iraqis have far more "Jewish-genes" (traits) than any given person claiming to be genetically Jewish.

And come to think of it, I am pretty sure god-genes would be dominant, so, I doubt Jesus could in any sense of the world be described as genetically Jewish either.

So, another fine concept down the proverbial drain.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 43 by OnceConvinced]

It seems to me that Jesus most likely did exist. However the stories about him are most likely exaggerated or made up.

That is just the way I see it now, although 10 years ago I would have said to you without a doubt Jesus did exist and he did do the things the bible says he did.

It seems to me that Jesus is most likely the best marketing campaign that there ever was. At this point, it doesn't really matter to the believers if he existed or not.. they can just assume that he did.

I love the new skepticism.
We should only believe in things for which we have sufficient evidence.

This "mythicisit" controversy is forcing me to learn about historical methods.
I love it.

So, now I am opening my mind to the POSSIBILITY that Jesus was not a real person. I do what a lot of theists are telling me that I should do.. opening myself up to possibilities.

Well, here I am open.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

A number of times I've seen Dr. Richard Carrier mentioned now as well as comments about his latest book. I have not read the book, but the following video is Dr. Carrier giving a quick (45 mins) explanation of his findings. I found it fascinating and a good summary of his position. Obviously some will disagree with his findings, but if you haven't heard or read first hand what he thinks, the video is worth watching.



If someone has a link to a recent scholarly work from 'the other side of the fence' that would be appreciated as well.

I feel like I'm back in school. I'm learning so much in these discussions. I didn't even realize Jesus's historicity was a debate.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 45 by Willum]

The Jewishness of Jesus varies greatly between people positing a Historical Jesus. For some, he was some sort of grass-roots social reformer (e.g. Crossan), for some he what we might call today a religious extremist/zealot (e.g. S.G.F. Brandon), others an apocalyptic prophet (e.g. Ehrman, Kummel and others), and still others posit that he was something of a hybrid between some kind of Judaism and the Hellenistic Cynic/Sage tradition (e.g. Mack). These are just a few brief theories as to what kind of Jew Jesus was proposed to be. I think its something that people can make a case for so many very disparate types of personages and this fact should really give one pause.

As an aside, if we do hold that Jesus had a Jewish mother, that would be enough to grant his Jewishness. Thats how it works: if your mother is Jewish you are Jewish. Paternity can be in doubt (i.e. prove your father is a Jew), but maternity is a different matter

Take care,
TFV

[Willum]

[Replying to tfvespasianus]

Nah, T, we're talking very much about absolutes. Who cares what anyone says. Jewish may be a religion - in which case, Jesus wasn't Jewish. Or it may be some geneolgy, inwhich case God DNA trumps it - certainly if God wants it too. LOL.

The idea that a half person half god would be dominated by anything other than the god is completely laughable. What "Jewish" traits in him would be so profound that they remain in the face of divinity?

Are Jews more of something than anyone else? Something that is going to matter to a being who can snuff out a Sun or something? LOL.

Or, making the terrible assumption that he did exist, why do you not think that he was the result of Mary and Panthera? It is more likely somebody had a date with a god, or a naughty tryst with a mercenary soldier.
(Coughing politely.)

If you don't have something to back up your claim, I'm just going to say it's preposterous.

Or we can just continue with the idea, that there is nothing written about Jesus, or the man risen from the dead in his time (Lazarus), so he doesn't exist at all.

So much MORE plausible than any other theory.

[OpenYourEyes]

Much like with Paul's references to Jesus as a human being,

Apparently every mention of a 'man', in an ancient religious work, MUST refer to a literal historical man.

It depends on the context. The context may point to a literal or non-literal man. It's also possible that a writer can use it in both senses within one writing. For instance, 1 Timothy 6:13 Paul

So when Paul says Jesus was a 'man', and he was 'born of woman' - that can ONLY mean a literal, physical, historical man, right ?

Because we all know, there are NO OTHER sorts of men and women mentioned in ancient religious books, right ?

Like Cain and Abel, born of a woman called Eve.
Must be historical to hyperbelievers.

Or how about Heracles (Hercules) - born of a woman called Alcmene - of course his father was a God, but that's what they say about Jesus too, eh ?
Historical to hyperbelievers.

Or how about the woman called Pandora (she had a famous Jar, now they call it a Box) who was married to Epimetheus, brother of Prometheus.
Historical to hyperbelievers.

What about this woman, straight out of the bible :
1 Sam. 28:7 "When Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by prophets. 7Then Saul said to his servants, "Seek for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her." And his servants said to him, "Behold, there is a woman who is a medium at En-dor." 8Then Saul disguised himself by putting on other clothes, and went, he and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, "Conjure up for me, please, and bring up for me whom I shall name to you.""
Historical to hyperbelievers.


But my real favourite is another woman who gives birth in the New Testament :

Rev 12 : 1 And then a great wonder appeared in heaven: There was a woman who was clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet. She had a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out with pain because she was about to give birth.

3 Then another wonder appeared in heaven: There was a giant red dragon there. The dragon had seven heads with a crown on each head. It also had ten horns. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and threw them down to the earth. It stood in front of the woman who was ready to give birth to the baby. It wanted to eat the womans baby as soon as it was born.

5 The woman gave birth to a son, who would rule all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was taken up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman ran away into the desert to a place that God had prepared for her. There she would be taken care of for 1260 days.

I guess that woman is historical too, eh ?


Kapyong[/quote]