Was Jesus real?

[False Prophet]

Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny were not Xians, but they reported his existence. Rock inscriptions or contemporary pottery did not leave behind the name of Jesus.

 

[Interplanner]

Soz. I misread your opening and thought you were referring to my charge that the Bible is poor or flawed. OK, the 3 worst inconsistencies are:

A. The 4 different accounts of the resurrection

Mark says there were 2 Marys and Salome, 1 white man in shining garments, and the stone was already moved out of the way of the front of the tomb. There is also the issue that the original version of Mark ends with an empty tomb and the women being afraid. No resurrection is stated. Mark was supposed to be the first gospel written which makes tagged on endings about a resurrection highly suspect.

Luke says there were 2 Marys and Joanna and other women, 2 white men in shining garments, and the stone was already moved out of the way of the front of the tomb.

John only mentions Mary who then went to fetch Simon Peter, 2 angels present, and the stone was already moved out of the way of the front of the tomb.

Matthew says there were 2 Marys, then there is an Earthquake which the other gospel writers didn't consider important enough to mention, and then 1 angel sat on the stone.

I couldn't put them all together and make a sensible narrative.

B. The events surrounding the death of Judas in Matthew 27 and Acts 1- I've already asked the questions twice now. These highlight 2 inconsistencies.

C. Jesus changed a lot of the old law which he had presumably written in a previous incarnation as Yahweh? The OT says God is unchanging. The NT changes many aspects of the OT God's wishes. The OT and the NT are not talking about the same God as much as Christians try to stretch the truth.

A. One of the disadvantages of the Christian origins is that so much happened all at once in an age when verbal accounts were the norm. There was no attempt to write anything for a couple years, partly due to the surge in followers a month later after the resurrection and partly due to persecution. Mark's was the first and terse and informal and shortest but the overall account set a structure which the doctor Luke found reliable enough to keep intact in a third version of things that was turned into a Roman administrator to defend Paul.

Re the end of Mark, the resurrection is declared before the fragment in question, 9-20. If it adds any realism to it, you might notice that
the women are told to go to Galilee (v8), but they are intercepted in the city before that. The text/account becomes alive when real things interpose like that.

You didn't usually establish any facts by reports of women in that culture. It is astonishing then that most of the first witnesses were female. (btw this explains some of the male disbelief that is recorded in each account).

Paul notes that there are many, many accounts of Jesus showing himself to followers after resurrection and at one of them there were about 500 people present. At that stage, Paul was a Judaizer. That meant he was on a mission against anything that would disrupt the domain of Judaism. I don't think he would get such an account wrong as a Judaizer only to dismiss it later as a Christian. Or forget to dismiss it!

C. (I won't be taking up Judas issues). God had declared that the Law was only a shadow or precursor to what was to come later. Actually the 10 commands are not unique to Judaism. Even the rest day. It is the dietary--ceremonial law that is unique. This is why on essential moral law the two testaments are consistent. This issue in the NT then has to do with the dismissal of the dietary--ceremonial stuff.

So why did God impose them on Israel? To mark them as his own in a region where there were a lot of fertility religions. There were many stark contrasts. The main thing was that the force of nature was not worshipped or 'appeased.' Instead a living, personal God was worshipped. He was above and over it all, while in Canaanite religion he was only a force, most active it the male who was sexually fertile the longest, proven annually at a shrine with a virgin he selected.

To this annual sexual practice we must add the unpleasant fact that the child born of that sexual encounter at the shrine was then burnt and the ashes mixed in a drink which would further the life of the fertile male leader and his crops and women.

Maybe now you can see why Abraham is something of a joke to these people; infertile (for a while); having doubts about himself so that he tries through a servant girl only to create trouble for himself; then when he does get an heir, God tells him to go incinerate him--he thought--only to have him stop before the act!

This made Abraham, whose fertility came back, and whose child was never burned and drunk, to be a legend all around the ancient area of Canaan (to be Israel) that the whole fertility cult was bogus. That there really was a living personal God and a higher standard of dignity and property. There would be conflict between them from that time on. Over time, Canaanite religion had more effect on Israel than Israel had on them.

Israel went into exile for it. When they came back they were very strict, as we see from Ezra and Nehemiah. They enforced the distinctions harshly. They were called the Pharush--the separated ones. AKA the Pharisees. But now the world had changed even more and the land was administered by many other cultures and peoples. So instead of a code as in the ancient time of Canaanite religion, Christ showed that God's act of sacrifice and love in his own life would be a guide toward love and care of one's neighbor. Most people regard this standard as the highest. They may even quote it even though they are not Christians.

Lastly, the early church still needed to decide how much of the Law needed to be continued to honor Christ in the new era of Roman and Hellenistic influences. It was resolved in a gathering found in Acts 15. Sexual immorality was out and a few things about food offered to other idols in the areas where many people were becoming Christians. But nothing close to the 609 dietary and ceremonial laws.

 

[Spectrox War]

Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny were not Xians, but they reported his existence. Rock inscriptions or contemporary pottery did not leave behind the name of Jesus.

I asked for contemporary evidence. None of these people were born before 30CE. Josephus' writings were late first century. Tacitus and Pliny the Younger were early second century. Tacitus and Pliny don't clearly make a comment about Jesus' historicity but talk in general terms about what Christians were saying and doing.
In terms of Josephus, the Testimonium Flavium is widely acknowledged to be a 4th century forgery and the "James Reference" is probably an accidental scribal interpolation from a later time.

However, here's a list of commentators who were contemporary to the time when Jesus allegedly walked the Earth and were well placed geographically:

Epictetus, Pomponius Mela, Martial, Juvenal, Seneca the Younger, Gallio, Seneca the Elder, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberias, Philo of Alexandria, Nicolaus of Damascus and more.

And what do they say about a historical Jesus? Nothing. Zilch. A big fat zero.

 

[Spectrox War]

A. One of the disadvantages of the Christian origins is that so much happened all at once in an age when verbal accounts were the norm. There was no attempt to write anything for a couple years, partly due to the surge in followers a month later after the resurrection and partly due to persecution. Mark's was the first and terse and informal and shortest but the overall account set a structure which the doctor Luke found reliable enough to keep intact in a third version of things that was turned into a Roman administrator to defend Paul.

Re the end of Mark, the resurrection is declared before the fragment in question, 9-20. If it adds any realism to it, you might notice that
the women are told to go to Galilee (v8), but they are intercepted in the city before that. The text/account becomes alive when real things interpose like that.

You didn't usually establish any facts by reports of women in that culture. It is astonishing then that most of the first witnesses were female. (btw this explains some of the male disbelief that is recorded in each account).

Paul notes that there are many, many accounts of Jesus showing himself to followers after resurrection and at one of them there were about 500 people present. At that stage, Paul was a Judaizer. That meant he was on a mission against anything that would disrupt the domain of Judaism. I don't think he would get such an account wrong as a Judaizer only to dismiss it later as a Christian. Or forget to dismiss it!

C. (I won't be taking up Judas issues). God had declared that the Law was only a shadow or precursor to what was to come later. Actually the 10 commands are not unique to Judaism. Even the rest day. It is the dietary--ceremonial law that is unique. This is why on essential moral law the two testaments are consistent. This issue in the NT then has to do with the dismissal of the dietary--ceremonial stuff.

So why did God impose them on Israel? To mark them as his own in a region where there were a lot of fertility religions. There were many stark contrasts. The main thing was that the force of nature was not worshipped or 'appeased.' Instead a living, personal God was worshipped. He was above and over it all, while in Canaanite religion he was only a force, most active it the male who was sexually fertile the longest, proven annually at a shrine with a virgin he selected.

To this annual sexual practice we must add the unpleasant fact that the child born of that sexual encounter at the shrine was then burnt and the ashes mixed in a drink which would further the life of the fertile male leader and his crops and women.

Maybe now you can see why Abraham is something of a joke to these people; infertile (for a while); having doubts about himself so that he tries through a servant girl only to create trouble for himself; then when he does get an heir, God tells him to go incinerate him--he thought--only to have him stop before the act!

This made Abraham, whose fertility came back, and whose child was never burned and drunk, to be a legend all around the ancient area of Canaan (to be Israel) that the whole fertility cult was bogus. That there really was a living personal God and a higher standard of dignity and property. There would be conflict between them from that time on. Over time, Canaanite religion had more effect on Israel than Israel had on them.

Israel went into exile for it. When they came back they were very strict, as we see from Ezra and Nehemiah. They enforced the distinctions harshly. They were called the Pharush--the separated ones. AKA the Pharisees. But now the world had changed even more and the land was administered by many other cultures and peoples. So instead of a code as in the ancient time of Canaanite religion, Christ showed that God's act of sacrifice and love in his own life would be a guide toward love and care of one's neighbor. Most people regard this standard as the highest. They may even quote it even though they are not Christians.

Lastly, the early church still needed to decide how much of the Law needed to be continued to honor Christ in the new era of Roman and Hellenistic influences. It was resolved in a gathering found in Acts 15. Sexual immorality was out and a few things about food offered to other idols in the areas where many people were becoming Christians. But nothing close to the 609 dietary and ceremonial laws.

All very interesting but how do you know any of this is true? How do you know there was a surge of followers a month after the resurrection? How do you know Jesus was seen by 500 people after his death? Do you have their names and sworn testimony? How are these claims any different from stories made by so-called alien abductees?

Christianity was simply the last in a long line of Hellenistic Mystery hybrid religions (Christianity was a Jewish-Greek hybrid cult). And the Mystery religions are all that is needed to account for the empty tomb story which Mark adapts and writes into his narrative. There is no explicit resurrection of Jesus in the earliest versions of Mark - a fact admitted in the footnotes of many Bibles.

And if I had a dollar for every time I have heard Christians say or write that "it was unusual for women to be believed about such a story therefore the resurrection must be true" I would be a wealthy man.

It was women's job to tend graves in those days. So why wouldn't they be the first to discover an empty tomb? Depending on which gospel account you believe, the women told the blokes who then verified their story to the masses.

Nothing of what you write convinces me. Sorry.

 

[RevTestament]

Nothing of what you write convinces me. Sorry.

The point is that nothing that any of us writes is going to convince you Spectrox. Only the Holy Spirit writing on your heart is going to convince you.

But less you think a few "inconsistencies" makes something untrue, I would direct you to writers stories of true events, or witness testimonies in trials of actual events. There is virtually always inconsistencies. It is just the way the human memory and language imperfections results in refurnishing the facts. It is a well known phenomenon. Different people remember different details, and even the same person will relate different details on different occasions.
You left out the seemingly "conflicting" stories of Paul's conversion in the Acts - three varying stories. Different details come out each time a story gets related - even when it they are from the same person. That doesn't mean the events never actually happened. If for nothing else Christ should be believed because His teachings are the way to true happiness. That happiness comes from happy relationships which come from loving relationships, which come from giving of ourselves. I have found there is no other way to true happiness.
Good luck in your search...
Peace to you

 

[rexlunae]

Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny were not Xians, but they reported his existence.

That's true. But then, they also didn't have direct experience of his existence. They must have been getting their information from somewhere else.

 

[Spectrox War]

The point is that nothing that any of us writes is going to convince you Spectrox. Only the Holy Spirit writing on your heart is going to convince you.

It depends what you bring to the table. I am open to suggestion and new ideas. I don't think the vast majority of Christians are. I used to believe I was filled with the Holy Spirit. But I engaged in critical thinking and the Bible made less and less sense.

But less you think a few "inconsistencies" makes something untrue, I would direct you to writers stories of true events, or witness testimonies in trials of actual events. There is virtually always inconsistencies. It is just the way the human memory and language imperfections results in refurnishing the facts. It is a well known phenomenon. Different people remember different details, and even the same person will relate different details on different occasions.

The old adage of the gospel writers being like witnesses to a car accident. That old chestnut. Except they weren't because Luke copied a lot of stuff from Mark, almost word for word in places and Matthew is even worse plagiarising about 80% of Mark.
The inconsistencies I highlighted are so bad they are contradictions as far as I'm concerned, which means they cannot possibly be true.

You left out the seemingly "conflicting" stories of Paul's conversion in the Acts - three varying stories. Different details come out each time a story gets related - even when it they are from the same person. That doesn't mean the events never actually happened.

Which event? Re: the resurrection stories. Was there an Earthquake or not? How many angels were present - 1 or 2? What women were present and at what time? None of these details are clear. The devil is always in the detail.

If for nothing else Christ should be believed because His teachings are the way to true happiness. That happiness comes from happy relationships which come from loving relationships, which come from giving of ourselves. I have found there is no other way to true happiness.
Good luck in your search...
Peace to you

Sorry that you feel the need to bow out. Maybe my questions were just too challenging? I accept your good wishes in the spirit they are given. I'm glad you've found peace and love. Knowing what I now know, I couldn't possibly find those in the Bible. Although I do have a measure of peace and lots of love already. And I created them.

 

[Spectrox War]

That's true. But then, they also didn't have direct experience of his existence. They must have been getting their information from somewhere else.

Hi Batman. How's Gotham these days?

 

[RevTestament]

Sorry that you feel the need to bow out. Maybe my questions were just too challenging? I accept your good wishes in the spirit they are given. I'm glad you've found peace and love. Knowing what I now know, I couldn't possibly find those in the Bible. Although I do have a measure of peace and lots of love already. And I created them.

I don't really feel the need to bow out, but it is fairly evident to me that you demand proof. God is not a God of proofs. He is a God of revelation. People that demand proof cannot find God. There are plenty of evidences. If you want to see how prophecy in the Bible works together, read anything in my signature that still works. (some of my threads got deleted.)
Cheers

 

[Ben Masada]

Was Jesus Real?

Was Jesus Real?

Good to see that we've solved that Jesus was real. Now the problem seems to be whether slavery was.

Have we! Which Jesus, the one of Paul or the one of Nazareth? The one of Nazareth was known as Yeshua ben Yoseph. The one of Paul was called Jesus Christ. Which one was the real one? The one of Nazareth was born of Joseph and Mary and the one of Paul was born according to the details added later by the gospel of Matthew in Mat. 1:18. Anyway, which one was real?

 

[Caino]

Have we! Which Jesus, the one of Paul or the one of Nazareth? The one of Nazareth was known as Yeshua ben Yoseph. The one of Paul was called Jesus Christ. Which one was the real one? The one of Nazareth was born of Joseph and Mary and the one of Paul was born according to the details added later by the gospel of Matthew in Mat. 1:18. Anyway, which one was real?

The presence of Jesus buttresses our faith in him regardless of the murkiness of the human records about him. He raised up a form of himself from the dead.

 

[Spectrox War]

I don't really feel the need to bow out, but it is fairly evident to me that you demand proof. God is not a God of proofs. He is a God of revelation. People that demand proof cannot find God. There are plenty of evidences. If you want to see how prophecy in the Bible works together, read anything in my signature that still works. (some of my threads got deleted.)
Cheers

I do not require absolute proof - just some reliable evidence and a little bit of demonstration. Is that too much to ask? To paraphrase Hume - "A wise person apportions their belief to the evidence." He was right.
So if The Bible makes claims of historicity it should satisfy the historical method devised by Gilbert J Garraghan. The Bible does not.
If The Bible makes claims such as the Sun stopped in the sky for a few hours, or there was a global flood, or Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans, then it should harmonise with a modern scientific understanding. Many Biblical claims do not.
If The Bible claims to be the ultimate morality, then it should demonstrate a basic understanding of human wellbeing versus harm and suffering. Many Biblical stories are morally bankrupt.

Don't you think it odd that in order for everyone to navigate safely through life by responding to claims we are forced into using reliable evidence and reasoned argument - and yet for the ultimate truth, the most important truth, we are supposed to abandon all of that and just take a leap of faith? What twisted kind of a god would demand that?

Not one that I want to worship.

 

[Spectrox War]

The presence of Jesus buttresses our faith in him regardless of the murkiness of the human records about him. He raised up a form of himself from the dead.

Cain-O has returned!

But what have you done with Abel-O?

Btw you didn't answer my question about The Urantia Book. What's your best reason for believing it? From what you have said about it and the little I have gleaned from the internet it sounds suspiciously like a UFO Cult.

 

[Spectrox War]

Have we! Which Jesus, the one of Paul or the one of Nazareth? The one of Nazareth was known as Yeshua ben Yoseph. The one of Paul was called Jesus Christ. Which one was the real one? The one of Nazareth was born of Joseph and Mary and the one of Paul was born according to the details added later by the gospel of Matthew in Mat. 1:18. Anyway, which one was real?

Some good questions.

The thing about Nazareth as far as I can tell is that it was not a thriving town with a synagogue at the start of the first century but was an area of shallow graves. There is some archaeological evidence that Nazareth wasn't a town until the 2nd or 3rd century.

 

[freelight]

Historical and Mythicist views on Jesus.......

Historical and Mythicist views on Jesus.......

What is your opinion? Was there a historical Jesus? If so who was he? If not what evidence do you have that Jesus wasn't real. Keep the discussion civil. I look forward to reading your posts.

Hello all,

Reviving this thread instead of creating my own, of which I may do with some future research projects, but this one on "Did Jesus exist as an actual historical person; how can we establish that, and what are the implications if he did or not for believers or the world at large?" - these are interesting and important questions.

My current opinion is open, but leaning currently towards a mythicist perspective more along a gnostic-theosophic theology (philosophically speaking), since one can draw meaning from the Christ-story, the symbolic/allegorical teaching therein, as it relates by analogy to the soul's transformation and journey towards union and perfection in the Spirit. (since all life is transformational, and further mirrored in the cycles of nature, via death, birth and rebirth).

For many years and holding now, I've been a true spiritualist at heart, so 'God' as Spirit is at the foundation of my theology and world-view,..... eclectic, progressive and universal, having roots in the ancient wisdom teaching, esoteric science, perennial philosophy. One Ocean, many rivers. One Sun, many rays.

This post and video here, reflect my current more skeptical agnostic research into the 'historicity of Jesus' issue, and since I'm almost finished with Ralph Lataster's book ('Jesus did not exist - a debate among atheists'), with a foreward by Richard Carrier, I'll be giving a book-review and summary soon - so far Ralph has done a great job in his critiques and observations, while being rather generous towards the historical Jesus view, but seeing more evidence and probability of the mythical Christ perspective, as he and Carrier give ample and comprehensive reasons for concluding this based on criteria and historical methodology more proficiently applied in this area.

Little historical evidence for Jesus exists outside of the NT itself, so much is a self-proclaiming affair, a literary creation and narrative written for a particular culture, community, faith-group, specially tailored.

WHAT IF you pursue the latest scholarship that is making the mythicist view of Jesus more probable and acceptable, and discover that more evidence supports a mythical or celestial Jesus figure being first that later got historicized and made into a physical flesh and blood Jesus on earth (depicted in the gospels), in which belief that he was an actual person incarnated on earth began, later becoming the dominant belief mixed in various Christ-figure motifs. It could be that the story itself, as a parable carries with it its own force and value, variously interpreted, whether or not a physical Jesus existed, or if the gospel version of Jesus is largely fictional, it still becomes a matter of 'faith' in any supernatural aspect of the person or story, still subjectively interpreted. While this may be the case, we can tackle some particulars already shared here along the lines of historical evidence in the first 2 centuries for starters.

I'll be taking a more skeptical, objective agnostic view, for discussion sake, not caring IF a historical Jesus existed or not, while accepting the potential value and meaning of the MYTH of Jesus historicized in time. Its all relative anyways, and complicated on an epistemological level anyways, as if anything could be proved, beyond personal belief, rationale, logic, personal preference or subjective religious experience.

Excellent group video chat on the issue -

 

[Zeke]

Hello all,

Reviving this thread instead of creating my own, of which I may do with some future research projects, but this one on "Did Jesus exist as an actual historical person; how can we establish that, and what are the implications if he did or not for believers or the world at large?" - these are interesting and important questions.

My current opinion is open, but leaning currently towards a mythicist perspective more along a gnostic-theosophic theology (philosophically speaking), since one can draw meaning from the Christ-story, the symbolic/allegorical teaching therein, as it relates by analogy to the soul's transformation and journey towards union and perfection in the Spirit. (since all life is transformational, and further mirrored in the cycles of nature, via death, birth and rebirth).

For many years and holding now, I've been a true spiritualist at heart, so 'God' as Spirit is at the foundation of my theology and world-view,..... eclectic, progressive and universal, having roots in the ancient wisdom teaching, esoteric science, perennial philosophy. One Ocean, many rivers. One Sun, many rays.

This post and video here, reflect my current more skeptical agnostic research into the 'historicity of Jesus' issue, and since I'm almost finished with Ralph Lataster's book ('Jesus did not exist - a debate among atheists'), with a foreward by Richard Carrier, I'll be giving a book-review and summary soon - so far Ralph has done a great job in his critiques and observations, while being rather generous towards the historical Jesus view, but seeing more evidence and probability of the mythical Christ perspective, as he and Carrier give ample and comprehensive reasons for concluding this based on criteria and historical methodology more proficiently applied in this area.

Little historical evidence for Jesus exists outside of the NT itself, so much is a self-proclaiming affair, a literary creation and narrative written for a particular culture, community, faith-group, specially tailored.

WHAT IF you pursue the latest scholarship that is making the mythicist view of Jesus more probable and acceptable, and discover that more evidence supports a mythical or celestial Jesus figure being first that later got historicized and made into a physical flesh and blood Jesus on earth (depicted in the gospels), in which belief that he was an actual person incarnated on earth began, later becoming the dominant belief mixed in various Christ-figure motifs. It could be that the story itself, as a parable carries with it its own force and value, variously interpreted, whether or not a physical Jesus existed, or if the gospel version of Jesus is largely fictional, it still becomes a matter of 'faith' in any supernatural aspect of the person or story, still subjectively interpreted. While this may be the case, we can tackle some particulars already shared here along the lines of historical evidence in the first 2 centuries for starters.

I'll be taking a more skeptical, objective agnostic view, for discussion sake, not caring IF a historical Jesus existed or not, while accepting the potential value and meaning of the MYTH of Jesus historicized in time. Its all relative anyways, and complicated on an epistemological level anyways, as if anything could be proved, beyond personal belief, rationale, logic, personal preference or subjective religious experience.

Excellent group video chat on the issue -

Jesus called the way has levels of conscience awareness, child, adolescent, adult, depending on how fragmented they have become alone the way will determine how Jesus is being perceived from the dominating fragment, be it child, adolescent, or father, without all working as one unit the way is perverted into appearances, labels, religious factions, scientific limitations, etc.....that hide the way of Life.

 

[freelight]

Digging deeper......

Digging deeper......

Jesus called the way has levels of conscience awareness, child, adolescent, adult, depending on how fragmented they have become alone the way will determine how Jesus is being perceived from the dominating fragment, be it child, adolescent, or father, without all working as one unit the way is perverted into appearances, labels, religious factions, scientific limitations, etc.....that hide the way of Life.

Yes,....Jesus is the proto and arche-type of Man,...man's form, pattern and potential. Jesus is the first and last Adam,...and so the old and new nature, the animal and spiritual are all consummated in him,....as in the model of the 'Adam Kadmon' in the esoteric schools. The Son of Man/Son of God is the prototypal pattern of human soul growth, evolution and ultimate ascension in God, no matter how one differentiates or synergizes the 'human' and 'divine' parts,...they are all in-cluded...and con-cluded - this gets especially robust when church councils are debating over the 'human' and 'divine' aspects of Jesus, which mirrors the divine spark, essence or conscience in Man, to say nothing over whether Jesus existed as the gospels depict him, so long as we take Paul's letters and Christology and summarize the whole thing as patchwork quilt anyways (some of his epistles being pseudographical, interpolations and other doctoring) so long as we have a working theology somewhat rational and coherent.

Lets also be reminded that Paul speaks very little of the earthly life of Jesus, nothing of his so called virgin birth, none of his prayers or parables, and none of his sayings/teachings atributed to him in the gospel accounts except what appears to be retrospected back into the later gospel accounts as the 'eucharist meal' (he claims he got it from the Lord by revelation, no mention of receiving it from the original apostles or tradition), and a mention of the Lord saying "it is better to give than to receive" (recorded by the writer of Acts, but found nowhere else). Otherwise his entire gospel is only by two means,...personal 'revelations' and 'scripture' (allegorically interpreted).

So, the entire story of a divine or celestial Jesus moving into the realm of space-time and posited at some point in history is all we have, and how this savior-figure undergoes a passion, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension...then how this applies psychologically/spiritually to OUR psychic/spiritual process,...and this is the gnostic aspect of it all, the emphasis on special knowledge given by revelation by the Spirit, since Jesus is to us now as a "life giving spirit", and for Paul always was just THIS (not a flesh and blood Jesus) who appeared to him as a 'voice' and a 'light'. - this is typical in many of the mystery-religion motifs, where the individual believer gets to share in the passion and exaltation of the savior-figure.

Anyways,....its all about what the STORY communicates, and how this is applied subjectively to man's religious life, vocation and ultimate destiny. While the focus here is Jesus, one can also ask if 'God' is 'real', but again we are back to 'subjectivity' and that 'reality' is some feature, quality or concept within 'awareness', subject to various criteria, conditioning and qualifications depending on how one is qualifying his terms. Is Jesus real? - perhaps only as 'real' as what the mind 'imagines', just as any spiritual presence, intellectual concept of physical object appearing......seems to be 'real' as we contemplate and consider that subject or object. Historically, Jesus of the gospels was placed at a point in space and time BY the gospel writers. Thats all we have, as all else is historically connected and related from that relative time-point of the creation or scribing of the STORY. All else in the following centuries are records about the believers in a 'Christ' (or Chrestus) and then accentuating the Jesus of the gospel narratives, woven together with Paul's celestial Jesus motif, and the evolution of doctrine, tradition and dogma that formed therefrom.

 

[freelight]

Did the Jesus of the gospel narratives exist?

Did the Jesus of the gospel narratives exist?

The consensus of historical scholars say YES.

This might have been true up until more recent times when more objective scholars currently are QUESTIONING and at least accepting as more probable or possible, the 'historical Jesus' presented in the gospels, since there is little or no comtemporaneous historical evidence for the Jesus of the gospels outside of the NT records themselves. Also note that christian theologians or bible teachers sponsored by christian schools and organizations have to tow the line and only support and promote a 'pro-historical-Jesus' model, since their very jobs and life-styles (besides personal faith investments) depend on it. (its a social-political bondage of sorts, until the knot of religious vice is freed, and here I only refer to 'religion' which falsely binds, but does not really spiritually liberate).

> A Growiing Number of Scholars are Questining the Historical Existence of Jesus

In the above article I do not endorse Joseph Atwill's theory of 'Ceasar's Messiah' shared towards the end, and neither do more credible non-christian scholars as well, but I'd have to research particular points more.

~*~*~

Otherwise Richard Carrier's recent hallmark work 'On the historicity of Jesus' is the first peer reviewed book of such volume offering tenable data that allows a more honest critical look at questioning the historical Jesus of the gospel records, which supports the view of a celestial Jesus or divine-savior-figure found in Paul's letters who somehow comes down into our sphere or heavens above the earth, mediates a special redemptive act (crucifixion, burial, resurrection, ascension) and is then somehow placed or made into a historical figure incarnated among men on earth as portrayed in the gospel narratives (written decades later after Paul's letters), so was a celestial Messiah who later was 'historicized' and made to live on earth, and undergo his redemption drama in this sphere. (note that it may not matter where the 'drama' of salvation takes place, as long as the Christ-figure undergoes the experience somewhere, to then make it available to men in order to be 'efficacious' - it could just as well have happened in a sphere above the earth, in the lower heavens, but still communicated to man in figurative terms).

Paul never mentions much at all about the earthly Jesus later romantacized in the gospels, never quotes his teachings or sayings from those records, his miralces, virgin birth, etc. His 'Jesus' is a celestial angel of sorts sent down into this sphere to enact some kind of redemption passion, death and drama, and is then taken back up, but all this translates on a psychological/spiritual level, and correlates or mirrors man's own process of soul-transformation,...with the ultimacy of this mortality putting on immortality, and this is what is most important to Paul, concerning this living Christ-figure, who is now become to us a 'life-giving spirit'.

The whole gospel of Paul is given to him by only 2 means by his own testimony,....1) personal revelation.....and 2) allegorical interpretation of scriptures. (he himself boasts about it, that he received from no man!, this would include the original apostles of Jesus, which his gospel went couunter to, and later became more adversarial). On this deeper esoteric level, it is purely 'gnostic', since only by revelation of the Spirit is the key of secret knowledge knowledge given, and by one being "in Christ" is the mystery of the ages realized,...."Christ in you, the hope of glory". It is wholly spiritual, no matter what 'story' of Jesus is entertained, since it is 'allegorical' anyways. Therefore, the resurrection is ALWAYS SPIRITUAL, and this is a key to all mystery-schools. (one can entertain a concept of a physical body becoming spiritualized, or a soul continuing to enter into new bodies, but thats just 'cosmetics').

After the death of the physical body, the soul is then raised in its spiritual body. - its actually quite natural process, one that does not need a carnalizing of the spiritual, as if the spirit need to get a physical body again. (the incorrupt does not go back into the corrupt). NO. - the 'natural' is first,...then the 'spiritual'. No one can prove Jesus is now in an immortalized physical human body somewhere, but to Paul he is a life giving spirit. If a celestial Jesus came down and took on a human body and became one with it somehow, no one can prove this Jesus exists anywhere, beyond such being a mere 'belief', or that Jesus abides in them somehow as a life-giving spirit (Christ in you), and is 'real' to that person by his own personal religious experience. - thats all one has, unless one can provide some criteria to prove or judge otherwise.

For the most serious research into the question of Historicity, for debate and discussion is to take on Richard Carrier's thesis and particular points head on. (hes a good start at least as a primer of the mythicist view and certain particulars). Ralph Latasters book, which I'm reading now is good, almost finished, and he agrees with much of Carriers work, but has his own views, criticisms and preferences in his approach as well.

> Questioning the Historicity of Jesus

 

[Zeke]

Lots of work keeping the pasteurized theological farms up and running. Hebrews 6:1-6, 2Cor 5:16, 2Cor 3:6.

 

[Zeke]

Images are good teaching tools but drinking letters isn't all that satisfying, 1Cor 3:2.