Happy Atheist Forum

Christianity is a peculiarly historical religion, centring around historical claims about the person of Jesus and his Resurrection.  What do you think can be known about Jesus - who he was, what he did, what he taught and what he claimed about himself?  How should the New Testament documents (the Gospels especially) be approached when considering these questions?

Quote from: "Matthew"Christianity is a peculiarly historical religion, centring around historical claims about the person of Jesus and his Resurrection.

How is it peculiar to claim historicity? Many forms of Buddhism claim historicity for Siddhārtha Gautama. Islam claims historicity of Muhammad. Mithraism claimed historicity for Mithras.

Quote from: "Matthew"What do you think can be known about Jesus - who he was, what he did, what he taught and what he claimed about himself?

The same as other holy texts. Without corroborating evidence, there's no way to know what's real and what's fiction and what's fictionalized reality.

Quote from: "Matthew"How should the New Testament documents (the Gospels especially) be approached when considering these questions?

Like any other myth. All we can know with certainty is that they're a collection of tales and essays written by people. Perhaps the most that can be gleaned from them is a sense of the attitudes and mores prevalent in the culture from which they sprang.

Quote from: "Matthew"Christianity is a peculiarly historical religion,

Maybe, but it's not necessarilly true to history

Quote from: "Matthew"centring around historical claims about the person of Jesus and his Resurrection

Resurrection is not historical - it's fictitious unless the opposite is demonstrated.

Quote from: "Matthew"What do you think can be known about Jesus - who he was, what he did, what he taught and what he claimed about himself?

Reliably..? Next to nothing.

Quote from: "Matthew"How should the New Testament documents (the Gospels especially) be approached when considering these questions?

With a healthy dose of skepticism and without taking the words on faith.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages108.fotki.com%2Fv1540%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2FTHIS_thread-vi.jpg&hash=2ac2215c89ca85e19f07e46877bb06c416fb130f)

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2150 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2150)

Quote from: "JillSwift"How is it peculiar to claim historicity? Many forms of Buddhism claim historicity for Siddhārtha Gautama. Islam claims historicity of Muhammad. Mithraism claimed historicity for Mithras.

It is peculiar not in that it claims that Jesus was a historical person (as you say, most religions begin with particular historical people), but that the very core of Christian belief stands or falls on the historicity of the Resurrection and whether Jesus made claims to divinity.  (I'm thinking particularly of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 about Christian faith being futile without the Resurrection).  That isn't generally true of other religions (apart from Judaism to some extent).

QuoteThe same as other holy texts. Without corroborating evidence, there's no way to know what's real and what's fiction and what's fictionalized reality.

Why can't the usual criteria (eg. criterion of embarrassment) be employed?

QuoteLike any other myth. All we can know with certainty is that they're a collection of tales and essays written by people. Perhaps the most that can be gleaned from them is a sense of the attitudes and mores prevalent in the culture from which they sprang.

In what sense are you using "myth" and "tale" here?

Quote from: "Matthew"but that the very core of Christian belief stands or falls on the historicity of the Resurrection and whether Jesus made claims to divinity

Resurrection is fictitious and predates jesus by a hell of a lot of years, so at the time of the gospels, it was not even a new fairy tale.

Quote from: "Matthew"It is peculiar not in that it claims that Jesus was a historical person (as you say, most religions begin with particular historical people), but that the very core of Christian belief stands or falls on the historicity of the Resurrection and whether Jesus made claims to divinity.  (I'm thinking particularly of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 about Christian faith being futile without the Resurrection).  That isn't generally true of other religions (apart from Judaism to some extent).

I've always thought this was hair-splitting. Really, though no direct claim as such exists in Buddhist writings, were one to decide that Siddhārtha Gautama never achieved anything but a lifetime of wasted thinking, that would also make his teachings just as irrelevant, yes? The peculiar thing is that only the bible actually says so in so many words.

Quote from: "Matthew"Why can't the usual criteria (eg. criterion of embarrassment) be employed?

Seriously? CoE is not a measure of validity, it's a gambit and something of a fallacy. Avoidance of embarrassment is in itself not enough to explain the "weakening or embarrassing" material, not without evidence of the motives. Similarly, the addition of "weakening or embarrassing" has been employed to make lies appear more believable before and since.

Corroboration in some form is all that can be acceptable to claim any level of certainty required to accept any story or part of a story as historical.

Quote from: "Matthew"In what sense are you using "myth" and "tale" here?

Myth: A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
Tale: A narrative that relates the details of some real or imaginary event, incident, or case.

Quote from: "Matthew"Christianity is a peculiarly historical religion, centring around historical claims about the person of Jesus and his Resurrection.  What do you think can be known about Jesus - who he was, what he did, what he taught and what he claimed about himself?  How should the New Testament documents (the Gospels especially) be approached when considering these questions?

What do you, Matthew, think can be known about Jesus - who he was, what he did, what he taught and what he claimed about himself?  How do you, Matthew, think the New Testament documents (the Gospels especially) should be approached when considering these questions?

Hi Matthew, thanks for the question. I think you've phrased it well and it should elicit (hopefully) some good discussion. For our members, please take the OP at face value. I'm already starting to see some less-than-straightforward or civil responses to what seems to be a very legit post and questions.

Thanks, let's keep it Happy!

My short answer to you, Matthew, is that although christianity seems to be a very historically centered religion to christians, I don't get the line of thinking that it is peculiar or unique in this regard. Especially when you compare it to other, even older religions, like Judaism. With regards to how well you can know the purely historical figure of jesus, I think it's virtually impossible. There is little written about him outside of the gospels, and the more I came to study the gospels, the less reliable I learned they were. It was study of the gospels and particularly biblical or NT apologetics which showed me just how unreliable the gospels were (all of this is my opinion, of course, based solely on my studies over time).

Obviously other people have read the same material and have come to different conclusions. I don't get into in-depth discussions on this topic any more, only because I'm pretty well weary of it, but I do think it is something that can be discussed and things can be learned.

Good luck with the thread all, and play nice.  

Quote from: "Matthew"....the very core of Christian belief stands or falls on the historicity of the Resurrection and whether Jesus made claims to divinity.  (I'm thinking particularly of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 about Christian faith being futile without the Resurrection).

Not all christian sects accept those doctrines, nor do all christians believe all of the bible. So, while fundamentalists, for example, ay place all their eggs in Paul's basket by relying on the alignment of all those points, it isn't at the core of all christian belief.

Considering that attempts to trace the historical Jesus (as far as I know) have turned up dead ends I would say that there isn't much we can know about the historical Jesus.  I assume it is likely that some spiritual teacher inspired the writing of the Jesus story but there is also a lot of reason to think that over time that story heavily borrowed from past religious views till it became the story that got put in the Bible.

The resurrection is definitely not historical, there is no evidence of it aside from the bible claiming there were a lot of witnesses and that is unreliable testimony.

It would be interesting to know if the crucifixion ever took place. Yeshua certainly wouldn't have been nailed alongside two common theives since that form of punishment was reserved for more servere crimes. Seems the Romans would have at least taken note of killing the "King of the Jews". Why would they not document this sort of event?

Is there really a "historical" Jesus? I mean historical in the sense that his life and work were actually documented by people who were around him, people who saw him and even interacted with him. Are there writings that describe and corroborate such things as where he was born, who his friends were, where he was educated, how he made a living and so on?

I mean, famous people were written about back then. All kinds of things were written about back then. That's why it's called history.

Nope. Nothing like that. Nothing even close. It's not there, which most likely means that it never existed, none of that was ever written and that has to lead one to conclude that there is absolutely no reason to be convinced that there ever was such a person.

Now it's very easy to read up on the history of Christianity. The Romans were great at documenting stuff, at writing about what was happening. It's just that none of that ever found its way into the Bible, which was cobbled together at least a couple of hundred years after all this gospel stuff was supposed to have taken place.

Anyway that's my understanding of the whole thing. For all I know I could have it completely wrong.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Is there really a "historical" Jesus? I mean historical in the sense that his life and work were actually documented by people who were around him, people who saw him and even interacted with him. Are there writings that describe and corroborate such things as where he was born, who his friends were, where he was educated, how he made a living and so on?

I mean, famous people were written about back then. All kinds of things were written about back then. That's why it's called history.

Nope. Nothing like that. Nothing even close. It's not there, which most likely means that it never existed, none of that was ever written and that has to lead one to conclude that there is absolutely no reason to be convinced that there ever was such a person.

There my be one thing close to it and that's the writings and description of him by Josephus, as he did write about actual historical events. Still he didn't write much on the matter and who knows if any of it was truthful?

If I remember correctly, the specific entry most point to in Josephus is considered to be a later interpolation.

Quote from: "Squid"If I remember correctly, the specific entry most point to in Josephus is considered to be a later interpolation.

Ah well... there ya have it. Thanks Squid. The one thing that made me think it may have been real is it described Jesus as being so damned ugly.

For a start I would like any and I mean ANY independant coroberation that Jesus actually existed from a source outside of the Bible. Shouldn't there be at least a casual mention of Jesus by the Romans in or around his own lifetime. Or the Jews for that matter.Considering all the trouble he caused them. If all the amazing things he supposedly did are true somebody would have mentioned them. Noone who could write ever met him? Or mabye told thier personal observations to someone who could write any time around when Christ was supposed to have lived? The first time someone tried collecting stories of Jesus was about 100 years after his death most of which were verbal recitations finally copied down...4 full generations after his death. Thats like us collecting WW1 storries by talking to grandchildren or great grand children of WW1 vets. 2nd 3rd 10th hand accounts can hardly be considered reliable when it's been proven first hand accounts are very rarely acurate. Let alone the fact that the NT was put together 300 to 400 years after Jesus's death. During which different books and storries were picked and chosen the edited to more closly match.

I have trouble believing Jesus existed at all let alone any claims made about his divinity. I certainly have trouble believing the NT as a document let alone an acurate historical documant.

Just reading for interest. Not particularly knowledgeable in this area.

Post removed by author. Moderator, please remove the rest for consistency.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Matthew"What do you think can be known about Jesus - who he was, what he did, what he taught and what he claimed about himself?  

God himself impregnated a virgin so that he could be born a ManGod. This was necessary, apparently, because only his own ManGod blood could appease himself and deliver humans, who he created, and who he knew would muck things up by eating the fruit, from his own righteous anger.  Later, god, in a garden, prayed to himself to "take this cup" away from himself, though he knew that he had planned the coming events from the beginning and knew that not even he could save himself, even though he was god and omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Accepting this, he said, in effect, "Not my will, but my will."

God then sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself (or had himself sacrificed; not much of a distinction between the two, really). Before dying, he asked himself why he had forsaken himself. Now, being dead, he then raised himself (no mean feat) from the dead less than 40 hours later, though he had said he'd be dead for three days and three nights, which he could do because he was still alive, and later he pulled himself up into heaven where he apparently already was, and where he is described as now sitting at the right hand of himself.

Let's keep the sarcasm out of this please. See my post earlier in this thread asking for civility. Your entire post is detrimental to good discussion.

Quote from: "McQ"Let's keep the sarcasm out of this please. See my post earlier in this thread asking for civility. Your entire post is detrimental to good discussion.

Sarcasm? In MY post? I hardly think so. It is Christian doctrine through and through seen from a different perspective.

I believe this will be my last post at this site.

Good day, Sir.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "McQ"Let's keep the sarcasm out of this please. See my post earlier in this thread asking for civility. Your entire post is detrimental to good discussion.

Sarcasm? In MY post? I hardly think so. It is Christian doctrine through and through seen from a different perspective.

I believe this will be my last post at this site.

Good day, Sir.

You know you were being sarcastic. I've asked twice in this thread for civil discussion. You are free to post or not, and you are very welcome as a member of the forum. I am asking that you follow forum rules and the directives of the moderators for civil discussion. No need to get upset when a moderator asks you to play nice.

The OP wasn't asking for a recap of christian beliefs, by the way, which is what you sarcastically posted. He is already aware of what he believes. He asked about how well we can know the historical jesus. Feel free to post to your heart's content about that. I'm sure you have a good knowledge of christianity, as you've demonstrated. I've just asked you to keep it nice.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "McQ"Let's keep the sarcasm out of this please. See my post earlier in this thread asking for civility. Your entire post is detrimental to good discussion.

Sarcasm? In MY post? I hardly think so. It is Christian doctrine through and through seen from a different perspective.

I believe this will be my last post at this site.

Good day, Sir.

Now don't go getting all unnecessary about it, please. You have a lot to offer this forum, your deconstruction of AA was beautiful to behold, he deserved his arse reaming and you did it perfectly. Matthew on the other hand is a genuine guy and really does not need the sort of post you dished out there. He has been polite and considerate and deserves the same as response. It would be a shame to see you leave just because somebody points out that in this case your response was a little too rough, in this thread for this member.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "McQ"Let's keep the sarcasm out of this please. See my post earlier in this thread asking for civility. Your entire post is detrimental to good discussion.

Sarcasm? In MY post? I hardly think so. It is Christian doctrine through and through seen from a different perspective.

I believe this will be my last post at this site.

Good day, Sir.

Now don't go getting all unnecessary about it, please. You have a lot to offer this forum, your deconstruction of AA was beautiful to behold, he deserved his arse reaming and you did it perfectly. Matthew on the other hand is a genuine guy and really does not need the sort of post you dished out there. He has been polite and considerate and deserves the same as response. It would be a shame to see you leave just because somebody points out that in this case your response was a little too rough, in this thread for this member.

Thanks for putting it so well, Tank. You said it much better than me.

Quote from: "McQ"You know you were being sarcastic. I've asked twice in this thread for civil discussion. You are free to post or not, and you are very welcome as a member of the forum. I am asking that you follow forum rules and the directives of the moderators for civil discussion. No need to get upset when a moderator asks you to play nice.

I defer judgment to Whitney.

QuoteThe OP wasn't asking for a recap of christian beliefs, by the way, which is what you sarcastically posted. He is already aware of what he believes. He asked about how well we can know the historical jesus. Feel free to post to your heart's content about that. I'm sure you have a good knowledge of christianity, as you've demonstrated. I've just asked you to keep it nice.

If you read what I posted...sarcasm or not aside...do you not think the author of the OP cannot see how the supernatural side of what I posted is not conducive to an historical figure...which was my intent?

Ok....hold on a sec...


had to think. Had to reread my post. I sincerely think that my post was not sarcastic. I just don't see the sarcasm. My post was what many Christians believe...all wrapped up in a couple paragraphs. The sheer ludicrousness of it may make it seem sarcastic. I saw no insult to AA within my post. I think I played fair. I think I played nice.

Seriously...

Sarcasm is in the world. It's a form of communication. It has its uses and is not always detrimental to a conversation or a debate.

I will give more thought to this.

And, I AM sorry I skewed this thread. McQ, please feel free to remove this trainwreck to an appropriate forum if you feel it is warranted or could use further discussion.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "McQ"You know you were being sarcastic. I've asked twice in this thread for civil discussion. You are free to post or not, and you are very welcome as a member of the forum. I am asking that you follow forum rules and the directives of the moderators for civil discussion. No need to get upset when a moderator asks you to play nice.

I defer judgment to Whitney.

QuoteThe OP wasn't asking for a recap of christian beliefs, by the way, which is what you sarcastically posted. He is already aware of what he believes. He asked about how well we can know the historical jesus. Feel free to post to your heart's content about that. I'm sure you have a good knowledge of christianity, as you've demonstrated. I've just asked you to keep it nice.

If you read what I posted...sarcasm or not aside...do you not think the author of the OP cannot see how the supernatural side of what I posted is not conducive to an historical figure...which was my intent?

If I make a post in my capacity as moderator in this forum, you'll defer judgment to me, thank you. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.

Let's not make this a pissing contest please. Gawen is an experience forum user, just not this forum, he may need a little time to adjust to the flavour of this place, just as I have. He is after all 'one of the good guys'.

I don't see what the big deal is...just acknowledge McQ's concerns (you can even note that you happen to disagree) and that you will try to avoid it in the future.  Pretty simple, nothing to get upset about.

For the OP/Matthew:
Hubby and I have had extensive conversations about why Jesus was not mentioned in any other historical document and we have come to a conclusion, for us at least.  We don't have lit to back it up but it might be something to think about.
During the 'time of christ'  there was a good deal of political BS going on in the Roman territories, this was documented.  Groups of people were pushing back at their rule, causing problems, in general being a pain in the ass.  What we think is that 'Jesus' was a compilation of all these little groups rolled into one as the oral history was passed down.  Jesus was a common name in the area at the time if I'm not mistaken.  As this oral history was passed down, different elements were added, the miracles, the teachings, etc. and finally it was written down and taken for the truth instead of evolved oral tradition.

Another thing tho think about, the Jews... they kept excellent records yet they mention NOTHING about Jesus.  Also they convened his trial on passover according to the bible, not thinking that was even an option to those of the Jewish faith then, they wouldn't have even thought about dealing with him until after passover as it was a sacred event for them.

Again these are just ideas that we have come to on our own.

I'm pretty sure there is more written about Spartacus than Jesus, as far as actual historical documents go. At least Plutarch wrote about Kirk Douglas....er...I mean...Spartacus!

Quote from: "McQ"I'm pretty sure there is more written about Spartacus than Jesus, as far as actual historical documents go. At least Plutarch wrote about Kirk Douglas....er...I mean...Spartacus!

No! I am Spartacus!

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "McQ"I'm pretty sure there is more written about Spartacus than Jesus, as far as actual historical documents go. At least Plutarch wrote about Kirk Douglas....er...I mean...Spartacus!

No! I am Spartacus!

That was so predictable (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg143.imageshack.us%2Fimg143%2F4363%2Fssoq9.gif&hash=c8ec41881f567ed1c6f813d019db13e650c0a5d3)

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Dretlin"

Quote from: "McQ"I'm pretty sure there is more written about Spartacus than Jesus, as far as actual historical documents go. At least Plutarch wrote about Kirk Douglas....er...I mean...Spartacus!

No! I am Spartacus!

That was so predictable (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg143.imageshack.us%2Fimg143%2F4363%2Fssoq9.gif&hash=c8ec41881f567ed1c6f813d019db13e650c0a5d3)

I had to be the first person to do it. At least its out of the way now!  

Ok, let's try it in a unadulterated scholarly manner.

QuoteWhat do you think can be known about Jesus - who he was, what he did, what he taught and what he claimed about himself?

1) There are no contemporary references to Jesus. The earliest writings on Jesus were written decades after Jesus supposedly lived. Later references to Jesus include those in the New Testament, as well as the following examples:
· Flavius Josephus - c90CE
· Suetonius - c120CE
· Tactitus - 110CE
· Pliny - c110CE
· Thallus - cited in c300CE
· Talmud - 200-500CE
· 'Acts of Pilate'
The earliest of these references, the one supposedly written by Josephus, is a celebrated passage in that names Jesus as "The Christ". Unfortunately for the Christian, this is a well-known Christian interpolation.
2) The Gospels aren't eye-witness accounts
3) The Gospels are a form of Midrasha; a traditional Jewish practice, which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. Take Mark for example. How much of Mark is based from the Old Testament?
[["Chreia" (from the Greek chreiodes, "useful") is "a brief reminiscence referring to some person in a pithy form for the purpose of edification or an anecdote which relates a saying or deed ]]
In Groups:
DIRECT OT PARALLELING:
1:12-13......1 Kings 19, The Fall
1:14-20......1 Kings 19:19-21 (Galilee Isa (9:1)
1:40-45......2 Kings 5, Nm 5:1-2
2:1-12........2 Kings 1:2-17
2:13-17......1 Kings 19:19-21
3:1-6..........1 Kings 13:4-6
3:13-19......Exodus 18:2-26
3:20-30......(Zech 3:13), Exodus 18:2-26
3:31-35......CHREIA SAYING, Exodus 18:2-26
4:35-41......Jonah through Psalm 107
5:21-43.....2 Kings 4:8-37, Num 5:1-2
6:14-29......Esther
6:30-44......2 Kings 4:38-44
6:45-56......(Psalm 77, Isa 43, Job 9)
7:31-37......Isa 35:5-6
8:1-13........2 Kings 4:38-44
9:1-13........2 Kings 1, other OT
9:38-41......Num 11:26-29
11:1-11......2 Kings 9:13, 1 Samuel 9 & 10 (OT parallels)
11:12-14....(OT: Jeremiah 8, 29, Joel 1, Hosea 9)
11:15-19....2 Kings (OT parallels)
12:1-12......PARABLE, 2 Kings 9:22-10:27 (OT parallels)
12:35-44....2 Kings 12:5-17
13:1-31......2 Kings 10:26-28, anachronisms, (OT parallels)
14:1-11......2 Kings 9:1-13 (OT parallels)
14:12-25....1 Samuel 10:1-7 (Paul?)
14:32-42....1 Kings 19:1-5 (Psalm 78:39-41)
14:43-52....2 Samuel 15-16
15:1-15......Daniel 6 (Josephus War?)
15:21-32....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:33-41....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:42-47....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
16:1-8........Daniel 6, 2 Kgs 13: 20-1 (OT parallels)
------------------
DIRECT PARALLELS 33/71


OT VERSE CONSTRUCTION (built out of individual Verses)
1:9-11........(OT Parallels)
1:21-28......(many OT echoes) also 1 Enoch, Tobit
9:42-50......(Isa, Num, Lev)
12:28-34....(OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
14:26-31....(OT parallels)
15:16-20....(OT parallels, Roman procession)
14:53-65....Invention (OT parallels)
6:7-13........MISSION CHARGE (CYNIC) (OT parallels)
4:1-20........PARABLE (many to OT/Hellenistic culture)
4:21-25......SAYING (OT/Jewish parallels)
4:26-29......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:30-34......SAYING (OT parallels)
------------------
plus 12 = 45/71 or 63.3%

CHREIA
2:18-22......CHREIA SAYING
2:23-28......CHREIA (OT parallels)
6:1-6..........CHREIA SAYING
7:24-30......Elijah-Elisha echoes, CHREIA SAYING
10:1-12......OT, CHREIA (Paul on Divorce)
10:13-16....CHREIA
10:17-31....CHREIA
12:13-17....CHREIA (Paul?)
12:18-27....CHREIA (OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
-------------------
9/71

OUTRIGHT INVENTION
3:7-12........Invention
7:1-23........(many OT, anachronism)
8:27-33......Invention (Peter's Confession)
9:30-37......Invention (2nd passion prediction
10:32-34....Invention (3rd passion prediction)
10:35-45....Invention/anachronism (OT parallels)
11:20-25....Invention -- 2nd fig tree
13:32-37....PARABLE
14:66-72....NONE KNOWN (Peter's denial= invention)
----------------
8/71

UNKNOWN or SOURCE NOT OT
9:14-29......NONE KNOWN
10:46-52....Plato? NONE KNOWN
5:1-20........Josephus? (OT Parallels=Isa 65:1-7)
8:34-38......Hellenistic Philosophical Concepts
8:22-26......Interpolation based on 7:31-7
8:14-21......NONE KNOWN Non-Markan
11:27-33....Baptism authority? SAYING
1:1-8..........NONE KNOWN (OT parallels)
1:29-39......NONE KNOWN
-------------------------------------------------------------
About 65% of Mark is built out of the OT.

4) All Jewish "Messianic Prophecies" fail on every level. Jesus was not a Messiah.

5) Jesus was a myth, just like all the other mythological man-gods before Christ. We understand these as myth:
a. When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God.
b. When the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life.
c. In fact, when ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades.
d. When Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man.
e. When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a myth.
f.When the Pythia , the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years, the prophecies came true.
g. When Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth. When Dionysus believers are filled with atay, the Spirit of God.
h. When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin.
i. When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman.
j. When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal.
k. When Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman.
l. When Scipio Africanus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman.

So how come when Jesus is described as:
the Son of God,
born of a mortal woman,
according to prophecy,
turning water into wine,
raising girls from the dead, and
healing blind men with his spittle,
none of it is a myth?

There no reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, but there is plenty of evidence with which we can logically deduce that Jesus was a myth, just like all the other man-gods that came before and after him. There are no compelling reasons to believe that the Jesus of the Bible could or did, exist.

Quote from: "Matthew"What do you think can be known about Jesus - who he was, what he did, what he taught and what he claimed about himself?

Very well. We'll assume that he did indeed exist. What DID this Jesus teach?
But first, the "synoptic" gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are similar to each other, and the fourth gospel, John, is very different.  Essentially all of the ethical teachings are in the first three.  John is almost nothing but miracle stories, promises of Heaven and threats of Hell.  What little ethics there is in John is remarkable more for what it does not say.  The first three have a lot of common quotations and stories; John has no quotations in common with the others.  

The ethics of Jesus in the synoptic gospels are difficult and challenging.  But one must remember that there is an underlying thought which is predicated upon a false assumption. It must be made clear in this presentation that the ethics of Jesus are apocalyptic in nature.
Mark 1:14, 15: After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15: "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"
So, straight out of the gate, Jesus is reported to have believed and taught that the world as people then knew it was coming to an end; he was an apocalyptic preacher.  Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, all speak of an apocalyptic end time, with earthquakes, famines, wars, with false prophets and religious persecutions, with mass deaths and turmoil.  He stresses that no one knows when this will happen, so we should keep ourselves ready at all times.

On to the teachings:
I submit Jesus’ main principle was preaching the end of the world with salvation as an end to worldly suffering and his teachings are the ways to achieve this.
Deny yourself
Matt.6: 19: Do not accumulate wealth.
Luke 18-25: If you have already accumulated some wealth, Jesus says to get rid of it.  
Matthew 13:44-46: Sell all you have.
Matthew 5:43, Luke 6:26:  Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. ((A reference to the Law. Leviticus 19:17-18: " 'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. 18: " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
In both cases, in context, these verses are not meant for siblings or fellow human beings, but only insofar that your siblings and fellow human beings are either Jewish/Hebrew (as in Leviticus) or of a follower of Jesus (as in Matthew 5:43).))
Mark 16:15-16: Preach everywhere making sure that unbelievers know that they're going to hell.
Luke 19:27: Kill enemies of Jesus. Although Jesus in one instance calls for the love of enemies, at the end of the parable of ten pounds, he orders to slay his enemies that would deny his reign. Despite the commandment not to kill, Jesus accepts murdering humans here.
Matt. 10:16, Luke 10:3: Go like sheep amongst the wolves. Sheep are not considered to be among the brightest creatures on the planet, and thus the analogy is very condescending and insulting towards many Christians. But to send his disciples forth "as sheep in the midst of wolves" is not what a "good" shepherd should do.

There is so much more. To sum up:
•   Abandon all your Earthly ambitions.
•   Forsake your Earthly family and give your loyalty to God and your fellow believers.  
•   Sell everything you own and use the money to do good works.  
•   Avoid receiving any Earthly reward for your good works.  
•   Follow the Mosaic Law, both the letter and the spirit of it.  
•   Abstain from all sin, inside and out;
•   Abstain from covetousness
•   Abstain from anger
•   Abstain from lust.
•   Abstain from adultery.  
•   Do WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO to abstain from lust.  
•   Practice strict nonviolent pacifism.
•   Do not resist evil.
•   Do not strike back.
•   Do good to those who hate you.  
•   Practice mercy and forgiveness and peacemaking.
•   Do not judge others; Judgment Day will come soon enough.  
•   Seek to purify your own character, strive to "be perfect, even as your father in Heaven is perfect."
•   Over-fulfill the Law seeking to follow the spirit of it as well as the letter.
•   Kill those that do not believe.
•   Abstain from swearing false oaths.

The Sermon on the Mount contains instructions to love one's enemies, and to "give to all who ask." Since one commonly-accepted ethical rule is "ought implies can"--that is, if one is unable to do something, then it makes no sense to say that one ought to do it--then Jesus' ethical system may be unrealistic. Based on this, “Ethical teachers, even Great ones” commonly develop full and coherent ethical systems which provide a comprehensive basis for teaching proper behavior and attitudes. Unfortunately, no such system is to be found with Jesus or the Bible. Instead we find a patchwork of homilies and pronouncements, some of which are unclear and others of which are contradictory.

The motivation for doing good deeds or moral behavior in Christianity is the fear of God. You don't want to cross God because you could lose your ticket to Hogwarts. Thus the motivation for decent behavior is purely selfish and egocentric. For serious Christians their relation to their God is often more important than their relations to other people. With God their personal eternal salvation is at stake. The moral/ethical teachings of Jesus are unethical as the reason for being moral or ethical is the fear of God's punishment and of losing the reward of eternal salvation. The believer is not rewarded for moral and ethical behavior, but for their blind faith. Genuine moral and ethical behavior do not need motivational promises of rewards, or inhumane sadistic threats of eternal torture.

QuoteHow should the New Testament documents (the Gospels especially) be approached when considering these questions?

With a really long stick and God goggles off.

@ Gawen  

:/




.....nah, I'm good.  

Quote from: "elliebean":eek:  Wow, Gawen, I feel almost as if I hadn't read the NT many, many times, in its entirety. I fact, I almost want to read it again, just to be sure.....  :cool:

Sorry if the post was long...too long. Anyone with a 'red letter' bible can read just the stuff I posted. But a question like the type Matthew asked can't be answered in a paragraph. There's just way too much...baggage...in the Bible, which is all we have to deduce that it was inspired by a god or not, let alone the historicity of the main character. Matthew's question is on par with asking the same thing about Robin Hood or William Tell.

When one lays out all the pertinent facts, coupled with my first post in this thread (which I deleted to calm the waters), what can one now logically deduce of the guy names Jesus? If one takes away all the supernatural side effects (my first post), all one has is what I posted above. And it truly amazes me that people willingly try to make sense out of it all.

It's been said that gMark is a play, written for a stage. If it was a play, it is a badly written one, full of plagiarism lifted off Jewish beliefs and for an age that only ancient superstitious goat herders could appreciate.

Ok...I have to quit or this will be another long post...*sigh*

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I wasn't criticizing your posts; I was acknowledging that, in spite of my having read the book so many times before, your posts brought to light quite a number of details I had somehow missed. Or maybe I'd glazed over them out of boredom, or was too brianwashed at the time to recognize them. At any rate, that was very informative, and, thanks!  

Quote from: "elliebean"Sorry, I should have been more clear. I wasn't criticizing your posts; I was acknowledging that, in spite of my having read the book so many times before, your posts brought to light quite a number of details I had somehow missed. Or maybe I'd glazed over them out of boredom, or was too brianwashed at the time to recognize them. At any rate, that was very informative, and, thanks!  

Silly girl...I didn't think your were criticizing me. I was only apologising because it was so long. And I sometimes tend to forget to remove my energizer battery...*grinnin*...before posting. And thanks for the compliment!!

So where is Matthew? I've been waiting to see what he has to say.

Quote from: "Gawen"So where is Matthew? I've been waiting to see what he has to say.

Ditto. I hope the deluge of responses didn't put him off.

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "Gawen"So where is Matthew? I've been waiting to see what he has to say.

Ditto. I hope the deluge of responses didn't put him off.

Me too, I was lurking the dialog, I refrained from responding because I tend to unintentionally sound rude at times and didn't want him to think I'm not interested in discussing things. Besides everyone else said things better than I probably would have.

Matthew will be back.

Quote from: "Tank"Matthew will be back.

Sure about that? Been 6 days.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Tank"Matthew will be back.

Sure about that? Been 6 days.

I may have to revise my optimism to 'probably'.

Great stuff

Simply put to verify historical accuracy there needs to external verifiable references.  Such practices are still used today.

Things that could establish Jesus in history, to the extent that is reasonably accepted and verified

-Census data that establish lineage (to date this is vastly inconclusive)
-Official documents
-True first hand accounts from those who they themselves are verified.  Preferably accounts from non-interested parties.
-Physical artifacts, such as a place of residence and have things like inscriptions that have John, James, Jesus, Peter, etc.
-Legal records, after all, Jesus did defile the temple, such an event would have shown up somewhere
-Verifiable locations such as a well, a community location, etc.
-Artifacts such as monuments, coins, pottery, etc from the time period

So far, no one has found or presented anything that is convincing that Jesus existed.

I posted this reply on another thread, but I felt it would be served to repost it here.

I believe there were TWO Jesus' figures. One was a historic Jesus, a real Jewish teacher, who lived and taught, and was himself not a Christian but a practicing Jew. Then, there is the "other" Jesus, the Mythical Figure, the Jesus who performed miracles, who was born of a virgin, and who rose from the dead. This Jesus is a mythical construct by early Christians, his deeds, birth, and death/resurection were all embellished to give him "street creds" for the times. Most early Christians didn't think that 2000 years later there would even be a world, much less a religion called Christianity. Most early Christians were convinced that Jesus would return to earth in their lifetime, and guess what, that hasn't changed in 2,000 years. Christians, today, are convinced that Jesus will come again in their lifetime.

Most of the Jesus Myth was borrowed from early Pagan Religions. Early Christians were little more than a group of sects or cults, loosely woven together, at best, by the central belief in a Jesus, but other than that had little in common. It wasn't until the Nicean Council in the fourth century, that the Catholic Church was formed and a central view of Christianity was formed. And how was it formed? By the same way early Christians formed their cults, but taking bits and peices from each sect or cult, and weaving a doctrine of Christianity that could be followed by all. Each sect or cult had their own bible or writings, and it was decided by the council which would be included in the Christian bible and which books or writings would be discarded as too extreme. The fact that Paul wrote to so many of the early churches/sects/cults, became a central part of the development of Christianity. I believe that Paul actually had more to do with the development of Christianity that Jesus did.

Just some thoughts.