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?

[steveb1]

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?

I believe that Mark's Gospel was the first known attempt to create a historical Jesus.

I suspect that Jesus, Son of God, heavenly Son of Man, savior, Logos, preexistent Adam Kadmon, was first worshiped as a spiritual, non-material, heavenly being, who was later "solidified", "reified", and "euhemerized" into a physical, historical being called by the Gospels "the Galilean carpenter/sage/miracle worker/sage/parable speaker/healer and exorcist/reform movement founder/social prophet/Messiah". There may have been several reasons for this, such as:

1 The universal human yearning for a deity as a human being - putting a human face on an invisible heavenly "Power".

2 Sincerely held visions and revelations about the heavenly Son's passion, death, and resurrection virtually begged for a historicizing "biography" which aimed to show what a human life would look like if the celestial Son incarnated on the physical earth. That is, the Gospels were presenting a scenario of what it would be like if the preexistent Son physically came to earth and lived out what had previously been a wholly spiritual "salvation plan".

3 The visions and revelations of the Son's celestial victory over Satan and his "principalities and powers" were the original "Gospel" - the original Good News. A stark, yet inviting, human portrait of this non-material, mystical sacrifice, death and resurrection was then constructed for the education and edification of those who already believed in the visions and revelations, providing a holy, human example for them on which to pattern their spiritual and moral life.

[historia]

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

That isn't all we can say. We can also say that the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure best explains the available data.

Yes, we have the hypothesis and we can say - as I said - it is possible Jesus existed. We have no facts on almost all his life and a psychological picture of the last piece. It is possible that the tales we have are as fictitious as the paintings done by our famous artists.

It appears that what you are trying to say here is that we can't be certain that Jesus existed. And I would agree. We can't be certain about most historical events from the ancient world, since we have so few sources.

But, just because we can't be certain, doesn't mean that all hypothesis are equally probable. It's possible that Jesus was an alien who visited earth, but that hypothesis is highly improbable.

When we critical examine the competing hypotheses here, we find that the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure best explains the available data. It is therefore not just merely possible, but also the most probable explanation.

[historia]

Except Paul himself tells us that he persecuted the Christian sect before joining it, so he couldn't have invested Jesus.

And are we to believe Paul simply because he says so?

Historians never simply believe a source "because it says so." We must critically examine all sources.

There's no good reason to doubt Paul's account here, since his past persecution of Christians appears in his letters as a source of embarrassment and the likely reason why many Christians doubted his authority.

Think this through all the way: Had Paul invented Jesus, he would be the founder of the Christian sect. What founder of a sect pretends to join, let alone persecute, the very movement they started? And who are we to imagine would have been fooled by this? Wouldn't people at that time know that no such group previously existed?

This hypothesis simply doesn't make any sense, let alone better explain the available data. It is highly improbable.

You'll notice that no-one else throughout history corroborates Paul being a persecutor of Christians.

This is, of course, simply mistaken. Luke recounts Paul's persecution of Christians.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 42 by historia]

I don't know about that, introducing persecution to a people who have been persecuted, both in reality and in their fiction, would have powerful overtones, fabricating credibility almost instantly and quite unfairly.

And of course, if we conjecture Jesus was fabricated, we must also consider that his twelve supporters were fabricated.

We must assure we get sufficient perspective away from the claims to assure we can judge them in equanimity and without bias.

Archeology and history should be the first places to look, and we don't find any of the carpentry of Jesus, we don't find Lazarus' final burial place or his biography, no ark, no anything.

Any one of these I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt, but a lack of everything germane to the religion, the reasonable person would, or should dismiss the events out of hand.

[marco]

It appears that what you are trying to say here is that we can't be certain that Jesus existed. And I would agree.

I am happy that my fractured articulation made its way to you sufficiently well for you to translate my intentions. The sentence that you appear to have a problem with is : All we can say is Jesus probably existed. You now agree. That should be an end of it.

But, just because we can't be certain, doesn't mean that all hypothesis are equally probable. It's possible that Jesus was an alien who visited earth, but that hypothesis is highly improbable.

Did anyone say all hypotheses are equally probable? I didn't.

When we critical examine the competing hypotheses here, we find that the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure best explains the available data. It is therefore not just merely possible, but also the most probable explanation.

Well I haven't critically examined various competing hypotheses. It's a matter of - did he or did he not exist? The answer is - probably. Since I did not have a list, as you seem to have, of all possible hypotheses, the superlative you use - "most probable" - would have been quite inappropriate for me to submit.

Let me repeat: it is probable that Jesus existed. You haven't contradicted this statement so shall we move on?

[marco]

You'll notice that no-one else throughout history corroborates Paul being a persecutor of Christians.

This is, of course, simply mistaken. Luke recounts Paul's persecution of Christians.

How certain can one be that a writer of fiction is telling the truth? 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.

Luke was a devotee of Paul, ergo what Paul said was truth. True, he didn't trace Paul's lineage back to Goliath. He's not a good referee in matters of fact.

[1213]

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.

Actually Jesus said:

"Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Matt. 22:21

And there is no reason why caesar shouldnt keep what is his. And there is no reason why Jews should even use coins of ceasar, especially if they are graven images as you claim. However, I dont see any reason to believe they were images of god and so graven images.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 46 by 1213]

You are right, I am so stupid to have not to have particularly specified what everybody and their two year-old-spaniel knows off hand.

However, let me elaborate for you what Jesus REALLY said.

Not more than a few stone-throws from a temple dedicated to collecting the God Caesar's taxes, he said:
"Give therefore to the [god] Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to [the god] Jehovah the things that are Jehovah's."

Not being there, or Greek, Roman or Jewish, I am sure you would miss the significance of Caesar being divine.

Now I know, you will say: But the Jews knew he wasn't a god, so it was OK to pay taxes, and give him the sacrifices and tributes that belonged to him.

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.

I am sure Yahweh only minds when you put real gods before him, and worships idols dedicated to those real gods. Do we agree?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 46 by 1213]

However, I dont see any reason to believe they were images of god and so graven images.

What did the Hebrews do while Moses was up on top of the mountain?
Why...they danced before an idol of what they called God. Whether a real or fake God doesn't seem to matter, Moses was p'd off when he came back down the mountain, and killed thousands of his own people (but not his brother who made the bull).
What about all the times the Israelites turn away from OT God and start worshipping foreign gods, and they get conquered? OT God is angry at that.
So...with this pattern of behaviour, I wouldn't be surprised if Jews believed that handling coins with what is claimed to be an image of a foreign (or fake) god would be anathema to them. They don't want to anger the Hebrew God. Bad things tend to happen when Jews do things with foreign gods.

[historia]

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.