Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[jimhabegger]

It just now dawned on me that this thread stopped being about what the title says a long time ago, if it ever actually was about that in the first place.     

(later)

Just out of curiosity, I went back to the beginning of the thread to see if the discussion ever was about what the title says. If I understand what Outlaw's point was, I'm thinking that it's true by definition, but if I'm understanding it correctly, then ... What was his point? I mean, what was his point in starting a discussion about something that's true by definition? Was it a way of arguing that the Jesus Christ in the Bible is pure fiction?

Anyway, it looks to me like the topic of the thread now is, how much of what the Bibles in people's heads say about the Jesus Christ in those Bibles should be written into history as being about a real person? The answer is different for different historians. For some, it's "none of it," and I agree with that. I don't think that any of it should be written into history as being about an actual person, in any of the ways and for any of the reasons that I've seen. I'm thinking that maybe the only reason for anyone saying that any of it is historical is to appeal to the interests of people who think that's important one way or another, and that the only way they use any historical method is to find excuses in it for calling their story "history." Which all has very little to do with any Jesus that anyone might see if they would read the stories about him in an actual Bible, for the purpose of learning all they can about what he says and does in those stories and what kind of person he is in those stories; and very little to do with whether or not there ever really was or could have been such a person. In fact, I haven't seen any historian saying that none of it could possibly be about a real person. It turns out that everything historians on all sides are saying about the past is all about probabilities, which no two of them agree about, except for saying that they personally think that the probability of a Pilate-Jesus-Christ-circa-CE33 crucifixion on one side, or of some Christ myth theory on the other, is high enough to write it into history.

[Inkubus]

All your base are belong to us.

[eider]

Easy!  If you download Paul's letters then you can use 'search' with the name 'Jesus' and you will see that there isn't a single anecdote or story about anything that Jesus said or did.

I did that already. I found three possible examples, but for my purposes in that search there would need to be many more.

Your three possible examples are probably to do with the last supper (leading to the wine/bread ritual)....... but there's nothing about Jesus the man, any accounts of his 'miracles', or of his sayings etc.......

Christianity is very wary of Jesus the man, who loved his wine and not-so-nice mates, who was dismissive of family in favour of true friends, who insisted that unreasonable wealth amongst the unreasonable poor was wicked, who supported the poor laws, strict rules for creditors and caused commotion and criminal damage in the Great Temple two days running....etc etc....... Christians don't like this bloke, not their idea of 'God come as man'..... I'm tellin' yer! 

But Christians don't have any trouble with mythers, folks who declare that 'It's all a myth!'. Mythers are no danger to Christianity at all. The most common 'All myth' claim that the general public now puts down as 'bad', 'nasty', 'dangerous' is the claim that the Holocaust is all myth, maybe that's how the 'Christianity mythers' get dismissed as wombles at the least, crazies at the worst.

Recognising that Jesus was a bloke who could get sloshed with his mates, who dumped poor family for good mates, who could cause outrage, criminal damage and commotion in the Temple........ now that's the fella Christianity wants to push under the carepet, methinks.   ....... and it was (on the balance of probabilities) true!

[eider]

It just now dawned on me that this thread stopped being about what the title says a long time ago, if it ever actually was about that in the first place.     

(later)

Just out of curiosity, I went back to the beginning of the thread to see if the discussion ever was about what the title says. If I understand what Outlaw's point was, I'm thinking that it's true by definition, but if I'm understanding it correctly, then ... What was his point? I mean, what was his point in starting a discussion about something that's true by definition? Was it a way of arguing that the Jesus Christ in the Bible is pure fiction?

Anyway, it looks to me like the topic of the thread now is, how much of what the Bibles in people's heads say about the Jesus Christ in those Bibles should be written into history as being about a real person? The answer is different for different historians. For some, it's "none of it," and I agree with that. I don't think that any of it should be written into history as being about an actual person, in any of the ways and for any of the reasons that I've seen. I'm thinking that maybe the only reason for anyone saying that any of it is historical is to appeal to the interests of people who think that's important one way or another, and that the only way they use any historical method is to find excuses in it for calling their story "history." Which all has very little to do with any Jesus that anyone might see if they would read the stories about him in an actual Bible, for the purpose of learning all they can about what he says and does in those stories and what kind of person he is in those stories; and very little to do with whether or not there ever really was or could have been such a person. In fact, I haven't seen any historian saying that none of it could possibly be about a real person. It turns out that everything historians on all sides are saying about the past is all about probabilities, which no two of them agree about, except for saying that they personally think that the probability of a Pilate-Jesus-Christ-circa-CE33 crucifixion on one side, or of some Christ myth theory on the other, is high enough to write it into history.

How right you are!
Historical Jesus is nothing to do with Historical Christianity, even the academics can wander off in to the development of Christianity rather than just sticking to Jesus the man and any parts of his life that can be retrieved.

In reaction to your post above I would like to cut all my present conversations and just start writing posts about what I think this man was from my own investigations from gospel cuttings, any history from the area and time, the geography,  fishing, farming and lifestyles etc...... and human nature!

If any wish to question, add to or involve themselves in HJ conversation, then great.   The ones who who just put up interference and constant 'It's all a miff, innit!' stuff.... those I can ignore.

Christianity just dismisses mythers, but it hates the 'Jesus was a boozing rebel' discoveries, and those nearer to the truth, imo.

[eider]

Historical Jesus

The difficulty in researching HJ from the gospels is that Christianity tended to add bits!  But for some reason Christianity did not redact so many 'bits' that were unhelpful or even downright difficult for Christianity! I've often wondered why and can only think that Christianity didn't mind adding to 'God's words' but was scared stiff about removing too much.  Some words were removed, for instance the first name of Barabbas was removed..... Jesus, or Yeshua in real like I expect; and his nickname 'Son of the Father' hidden in plain sight by using Eastern Aramaic

People often ask 'How come this is all coming out now?'   That's easy to answer.... back in the day folks who asked too many questions ended up burning or at least very dead. The Dominican Order was focused upon the security of the faith, and even in Dickensian times the power of the churches and their diocesan boards was scary, it was mainly in the last century that people started to look about, and to enquire.

I've slowly gathered info and my picture of an historical Jesus is one that doesn't support Christianity in the slightest. Agnosticism and Atheism has nothing to fear from such as me.  And so I will try to write posts about the Jesus that surfaced to me during my researches.

I'll start posting tomorrow morning (GMT) and let's see how that goes......

[Minimalist]

Jesusism developed for centuries before anyone even felt the slightest need to find an "historical" jesus.  He was not essential to it but he was a useful marketing tool.

[jimhabegger]

In reaction to your post above I would like to cut all my present conversations and just start writing posts about what I think this man was from my own investigations from gospel cuttings, any history from the area and time, the geography,  fishing, farming and lifestyles etc...... and human nature!

I was going to say that I wouldn't call that "historical Jesus," but apparently most historians have agreed for people to make up any story they want to and call it "history," so why not yours? I don't call my story "historical," because that might distract and divert attention from the fact that it's strictly about the Jesus in Bible stories. That doesn't mean that I'm not considering any historical context. I am, in all those dimensions, but it's only to understand the context of the Bible stories, as stories. For my purposes it doesn't matter if anything in those stories ever really happened or not.

[Phaedrus]

When reading a written work, you have to consider it in its entirety. Sure, putting on blinders to only focus on certain aspects may provide you with something that comforts your bias. But if something else in the book reads like mythological fiction, chances are none of it can be trusted to be historically accurate.

[jimhabegger]

I've slowly gathered info and my picture of an historical Jesus is one that doesn't support Christianity in the slightest.

My picture of a biblical Jesus doesn't support Christianity in the slightest, either. I'm thinking that the religious beliefs and practices promoted by Christian churches are mostly ways of hiding his light and his message from people and even repelling people away from him. Most of my life I've disagreed with people blaming Paul for that, but now I'm thinking that maybe he's more a part of it than I thought.

(later)

What you're doing might be closer to what I thought this thread was about: whether or not some biblical Jesus is the same as some historical Jesus. Now I'm thinking that since Christians are agreeing for people to make up any story they want to about Jesus and call it "biblical," and historians are agreeing for people to make up any story they want to and call it "historical," then people can make up any story they want to and call it "biblical" and "historical" at the same time.

What really interests me about your story is that it might be from actually reading Bible stories about Jesus, which might make it possible for us to share and compare our stories, if that could ever interest you.

[jimhabegger]

Jesusism developed for centuries before anyone even felt the slightest need to find an "historical" jesus.  He was not essential to it but he was a useful marketing tool.

Useful for selling books and getting paid for talks and other performances.

[Bucky Ball]

Christianity is very wary of Jesus the man, who loved his wine and not-so-nice mates, who was dismissive of family in favour of true friends, who insisted that unreasonable wealth amongst the unreasonable poor was wicked, who supported the poor laws, strict rules for creditors and caused commotion and criminal damage in the Great Temple two days running....etc etc....... Christians don't like this bloke, not their idea of 'God come as man'..... I'm tellin' yer! 

"I'm telling yer" has no credibility. This isn't the "make up shit thread". Prove it.
Provide 3 quotes from scholars, texts, or from current or ancient Christian communities that support this garbage, or STFU.
This isn't "Wanna hear my opinions about Jesus ?" thread.
Just another fraud, peddling their pet theory.

[Free]

I've slowly gathered info and my picture of an historical Jesus is one that doesn't support Christianity in the slightest.

Your picture of an historical Jesus comes from the Gospel, not from actual history.

Ditch that nonsense.

[Dancefortwo]

I always think it's funny that a god was walking around in the Middle East talking to people in large gatherings, went around defying the physics of the universe, does magical things and even cames back to death after he's dead but no one stopped to write about this god until 40 to 80 years later.  

Here's Paul walking down the road on his way to Damascus and a god pops up in the middle of the road but he waits another 18 or 19 years to write about it. 

People were stupid back then. Well....people are stupid today too but that's another discussion.

[Bucky Ball]

I always think it's funny that a god was walking around in the Middle East talking to people in large gatherings, went around defying the physics of the universe, does magical things and even cames back to death after he's dead but no one stopped to write about this god until 40 to 80 years later.  

Here's Paul walking down the road on his way to Damascus and a god pops up in the middle of the road but he waits another 18 or 19 years to write about it. 

People were stupid back then.   Well....people are stupid today too but that's another discussion.

I like the part where 500 dead people are walking around Jerusalem, and the temple curtain is torn ... yet no Jew, even though they write about all kinds of other stuff, didn't bother to write about that. LOL

[Rhythmcs]

It wasn't so much that people were stupid, as that people were poor and hungry. Proto-christianity targeted the disaffected in rome as the state failed to provide basic services for it's increasingly restless population on the one hand, while actively courting prominent families to ingratiate itself with the halls of power, on the other. Eventually, it provided some framework after the fall of the empire for continued charity and was now and again a useful diplomatic channel between the warring states that would emerge as europe became what it is now.

It's good to remember that the earliest christians would not know many of these stories, would not have read magic book. It's tough to say that they were stupid for believing in this or that story, in that light. What they believed was that there was a better world waiting for them or just over the horizon...and that's relatable given their circumstances...or failing that..that they'd damn well better say the words and act like they do if they'd prefer not to have their heads separated from their bodies.

[jimhabegger]

This isn't "Wanna hear my opinions about Jesus ?" thread.

It's isn't? Uh oh, I must have took a wrong turn somewhere.  Can you tell me how to get there from here?

(later)

I'm thinking that it might be in one of these places:
- Spirituality, Pseudoscience and Conspiracy Theories
- Philosophy and Ethics
- Sports
- Art and Literature (storytelling)
- Off Topic
- Getting to Know You
- Gaming (roleplalying)

Where do people talk about their hobbies and crafting?

"Making up stories about Jesus," for people who do that as a hobby to share and compare their stories, without the distraction of debating about how biblical or historical they are.

[Cavebear]

I would say "I'll go with "speed of light" and F=MA for the moment", but I'll bet there are arguments against both.  There are always the "unknown unknowns".

Folks like (the late) Harry Edwards of Leatherhead, Surrey, England produced so many 'unknown unknowns'.  My late wife suffered grande mal seizures some days and always each night. I took her to meet Harry in 1973 and she told him she didn't believe in healing etc, that she had come to please me. Harry told her that was fine and that we could go back home....... she didn't have another seizure at all until a couple of years later when they just commenced again, so I went back to see Harry to hear that he had just died.  That still stops me dead to remember all that.

Eider, "unkown unkowns" refer to things we don't even know we don't know about. I don't know if Donald Rumsfeld was the 1st to describe that, but he was famous for using the idea. The idea was part of all possibilities of knowledge of events:

1. There are known knowns. Like, the enemy has weapons and you know about them to a detail level.
2. There are known unknowns. Like, we know the enemy has certain weapons and we don't know much about them.
3. There are unknown knowns (I think this is tricky to describe). Like things we know we have information on, but don't realize it.
4. There are unknown unknowns (I think this is trickiest). These are things we don't even know that we don't know. I suppose a few examples might be an alien invasion fleet headed toward Earth at lightspeed, a new virus that has just infected its first human who is not showing symptoms yet, or the Earth's magnetic poles reversing suddenly tomorrow. Technically, the best example would be one so "out of our experience that we can't even imagine it as an example".

So, to get back to your reply, your late wife's example is really just a known known. There are recoveries (temporary or permanent). We know people recover from difficult conditions, but we also know why it can happen (the body has mental and physical defenses).

And I will end with a slight LOL! Apparently, her temporary recovery didn't quite "stop you dead". Unless you are posting in the afterlife.

[Cavebear]

But the "evidence" for that consensus is exceedingly weak and contained in the gospels which are useless as history.

Why can't the Gospel of Mark be considered useful as history?

No neutral outside corroboration for one thing. Historical events are routinely recorded by many people. Or there is no archeological evidence. The Romans recorded events of civil events rather carefully. I have to admit a lack of evidence there, having read about it in serious info magazines but not wanting to flip through a hundred.

But basically, the "proof" of the bible is entirely self-contained. And that is not any evidence at all. Let's say the longest spear-throw was 150 yards. And I wrote that I threw one 200. And I say my father and son witnessed the event and agreed it happened.

My writing about the event is not actual evidence for the event. Nor is my claim that my father and son witnessed the event. Their claims are not there. Now, had the event occurred in public, with officials to write about it and observers to mention the event in writing to friends, that would be some evidence.

You can't even provide evidence that "Mark" wrote about Jesus at the time. I've seen some evidence that all the earliest "Matt/Mark/Luke/John" gospels were written a century later.

[Cavebear]

OK, let me ask you more about "historical Jesus".  Do you mean the child that was born and probably had a rather normal childhood as the son of a poor carpenter, grew to adulthood, preached some ideas he had about Judaism, and then was (maybe) killed by the Romans for being a public nuisance?  Or do you mean someone else?

Yep........ that's the guy, only I don't think that he preached but called for rebellion, and I'm not sure at all that the Romans killed him. I don't think that Pilate wanted him dead.

I can go with that...

[Cavebear]

Yep........ that's the guy, only I don't think that he preached but called for rebellion, and I'm not sure at all that the Romans killed him. I don't think that Pilate wanted him dead.

All history can ever say about the dude is this:

A man named Jesus who was regarded as a Christ by many was crucified by Pilate circa CE33.

No miracle worker. No preacher. No resurrection. No other bullshit.

That's it. That's all we know.

Is there actual evidence the Romans cruxified a preacher/rebel named "Jesus"?  Roman reconds don't mention such a specific event.  Oh sure, they cruxified many, but I don't know of any mention of a specific "Jesus".  The christians treat it as a major event by the Romans, and the Romans don't even mention it.

[Minimalist]

Nothing but the bullshit stories in the so-called gospels.

[eider]

So ... who the fuck are you?

Ha ha! You two wonderful historians, eh?
A perfect example of 'You're right 'cos you're somebody!'  Meh!
You two shouldn't read 'newbie' posts....really......you should chat between yourselves.

[eider]

So you never found it either! 
Have you read G-Mark? 
Are you really interested in G-Mark and it's author?

Let's just see if anybody has really studied G-Mark.  If you have then you would be able to tell me exactly what Jesus did after arriving in Jerusalem on that Palm Sunday.  If you can't tell me that then I know you have absolutely no interest in G-Mark or its author at all. 

Well, have you?  Are you?

^^^^ Alert! "Nice shiny object above!"

Post the goddamn passage or shut the fuck up.

So you don't have a clue about G-Mark, couldn't just send a one line answer to the easiest question about Jesus....... What did he do in Jerusalem/Temple on Palm Sunday!!!!! 

I don't believe that you've studied HJ in the least depth whatsoever, yet you want to be given key information at your whim......

Not for you, mate.   I'll get to the answer in my HJ posts, but I'm not in any hurry to suffer your interrogations.

[eider]

Here, Jim.  In On The Historicity of Jesus, Carrier quotes the following passage.

So much of this jesus shit is desperately imagining that they see what they want to see.

Paul's God is nothing to do with Jesus the man.
Carrier is writing about HC and not HJ.

[Minimalist]

There are NO ancient writings at all about any HJ.  No one even considered dumbing down fucking jesus until the late 19th century.  You know....this is not the first place we saw this kind of shrinkage.  "Nazareth" started out as a city and is now down to a miserable hamlet at best.  At his peak your pal jesus was the creator of the universe and now the HJ crowd would be happy if they could find some evidence that he was just some asshole who got himself killed.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen!