A Historical Jesus?

uncle_onion

I have been reading a book called “The Jesus mysteries” and it puts forward an idea that Jesus never existed but was “born” out of the ideas of Gnostism. There are MANY similarities between ancient religions and Christianity, which is very worrying for me. I have not had a lot of time of late to read up on it properly but here are the conclusions that I have come to so far.

Did Christ exist? Many people say, “Yes”. I have also been reading a book called “ A case for Christ” and this book attempts to prove historically that he did. Christians always seem to bring up Josephus and the way that he said that there was a Christ. But did you know that this quote is understood to be an addition added by a “Christian” and even Bruce Metzger says that some of the words in that quote must have been an interpolation. Again this is worrying.

Paul never mentions a historical Jesus in his books. The ones that do are thought to be spurious. I have posted some links here as to why scholars think this.

In the New Testament, the three epistles known as the pastorals are most Frequently assumed to be spurious: Titus, 1 Timothy, and 2 Timothy.

… http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/1timothy.html

After the pastorals, the epistle to the Ephesians is most often considered to be spurious.

… http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/ephesians.html

After Ephesians, the epistle II Thessalonians is often considered to be spurious.

… http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/2thessalonians.html

Finally, the epistle to the Colossians is frequently thought to be spurious.

… http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/colossians.html

All this evidence seems to be really overwhelming but certain things have stopped me from making a decision set in stone:

1. The Jews had access to the records and did not dispute the genealogical lists for Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Surely an enemy of Christianity would have an easy target here?
2. Jews were still visiting the “holy land” for centuries after Christ’s death. Why if the Jesus story had no substance?
3. How can one man have made such an impact on peoples lives,if he was a figment of some ones imagination?

I await your comments.

UNCLE ONION

Amazing

Hi Uncle: I got into a discussion about this with Jim Penton sometime back. I went through a lot of material that debates Pro and Con the historical works by Josephus. Jim Penton made excellent arguments that too much written history exist to suggest that Jesus was not a real person, but a fiction. Jewish historians likewise recognize the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, but of course do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. I have saved a lot of links on this and side with the view that Jesus Christ really existed, when he existed. What we make of him beyond that is a matter of faith and acceptance of the Christian addition to the Bible. - Amazing

ISP

UO how are you man! We should meet up soon! This subject is not an easy one. I have problems with the gospel accounts being dated 2nd century along with Acts. It all seems to fit the conspiracy ideas. i.e. the gospels literally put flesh on the bones of 'Jesus'. They gave him family, background and cool sayings! But funny that these details went unknown to Paul and others. I mean when we talk of Jesus we never fail to delve into the sermon on the mount or the parables etc. But this information was not commented on by the early writers.

The lists of ancestors were put in the gospel accounts after 70 ce, as I said those accounts were available in the 2nd century, long after the destruction of the jews records.

Although the Jews visited their holy places.......christians didn't for some time. It is remarkable that Paul would have not visited the holy places himself or others in the first century.

Without doubt, 'Jesus' has had a massive impact. But how much of it has been simply created....... for impact........and control?

ISP

Moxy

re josephus: id have to check this but arent there TWO references to jesus? one, with a messianic flavor that is roundly considered a christian interpolation and another one, less descriptive, i think the one that just mentions 'james, brother of jesus' that is considered authentic?

mox

JanH

Uncle Onion,
It is true that most, also most scholars, assume that Jesus existed. I also think the balance of evidence suggests that it's slightly more likely a religious leader "Jesus" existed than that the Christ legend is built entirely on fiction.

However, it remains a fact that the records to Jesus are somewhere between extremely sparse and non-existent. Essentially, all we have beyond the much later gospels are Josephus, and the more I see it, the more convinced I am that all mention of Jesus, not only the obvious parts, are spurious.

The Jews had access to the records and did not dispute the genealogical lists for Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Surely an enemy of Christianity would have an easy target here?

1. These genealogy lists are self-refuting, as they are self-contradictory.

2. Nothing suggests these gospels even existed until after Jerusalem (and all available records) were destroyed in 70AD.

3. We simply don't know what arguments Jewish opponents used against the Christians. Christianity was an obscure sect until well into the 2nd century, and then all who had ever met Jesus (if he existed) were long dead.

4. It is easy to overestimate the quality of religious debate in the 1st century.

2. Jews were still visiting the “holy land” for centuries after Christ’s death. Why if the Jesus story had no substance?

I don't really understand what you mean here. Please explain. Which Jews?

Surely, in pre-technological society, with no reliable records of events and short lifespans, legends could develop from nothing and be considered fact in a few decades.

3. How can one man have made such an impact on peoples lives,if he was a figment of some ones imagination?

The Jesus story had not much impact on many people until long after all who had been alive in Palestine in the 30s AD were dead. All they had to base the beliefs on are the social community of believers and their books. Whether Jesus had existed is pretty irrelevant to the impact these ideas had on people in subsequent centuries, and it was only then these beliefs impacted the lives of so many.

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

bj

Hi John, did you manage to read LOSING FAITH IN FAITH by Dan Barker? Chapter 51, speaks about, Jesus: History or Myth? What I find interesting is that the historian Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee and wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived, "makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did." (see Photius' BIBLIOTHECA, code 33)
Send my regards to your family.

uncle_onion

bj

I have not got round to reading the book. Can you please send me the link again.

JanH

There was a documentary on BBC1 that said the christian jews were visiting the sites mentioned in the Bible for some centuries after Christs Death?

UO

JanH

UO,

There was a documentary on BBC1 that said the christian jews were visiting the sites mentioned in the Bible for some centuries after Christs Death?

I see. Well, that would not have been unlikely to be true. But there is no information about this happening in the early years when anyone alive would have any personal knowledge about Jesus the man.

It is notable that Paul makes no mention of any holy places, and obviously had no interest in visiting them if he at all knew about such things.

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

Quester

I've been studying the historical Jesus for about 9 months now.

I think what is questioned is whether Paul actually
wrote those epistles or if someone else wrote them
in Paul's name--not uncommon to do that in those
days. I don't know that I would call them "spurious"--
which seems to indicate they are false or not to be taken
seriously.

RE Brown in Intro to NT indicates that the genealogies in
Matthew and Luke are not strictly historical. I haven't
read much on this.

I still believe Jesus existed. But I think Jesus as the
Christ of faith is who Jesus became to his followers after
his death and is not to be understood as literal historical fact.

I don't think Biblical myths/legends are untrue or pure fiction.

Myths/legends are a way of writing about people's encounters
with the sacred or the ineffable God. It speaks of
something beyond the normal human dimension.

I think it is more accurate to say Biblical myth means it is
not literal historical fact. Myths are allegorical, metaphorical,
symbolic, etc. Quester

uncle_onion

Amazing

I have been thinking about what you wrote today.

If Jesus existed then he was either the son of God or a very clever man. If we believe that he was the son of God then we have to accept the Genesis account as Jesus quoted from Moses and mentioned Noahs flood. But this to me contradicts science.Is it a case of "well we dont have the answers to everything so we will put them in the back of our minds until God revels them to us?"

Uncle onion

A Historical Jesus?

Share this