The Historical Jesus

[Sophus]

Anybody know some good websites with unbiased information on who the actual Jesus was?

[Whitney]

Anybody know some good websites with unbiased information on who the actual Jesus was?

Nope, I've found that pretty hard to come by on the Jesus topic.

[Graham]

I think this thread would make a great dry humour comic.

[Will]

Most of the historical information we have now can be traced back to biblical sources. I dare say there likely isn't any verifiable information on Jesus of Nazareth that can't be traced back to the Bible or early Christians. It's odd, too, because historical records from that time in Palestine are actually pretty good. We know a lot about government, religion, people, etc. We also know there were a lot of "saviors" at the time, each claiming to be the culmination of Jewish prophecy. Jesus might have been one of them, but simply by another name. It's also possible that the Jesus character is an amalgam of different miracle workers and self-proclaimed saviors of the time. It's probable that he was made up 60 years after the time he was supposedly around.

I'm afraid the answer is that no such website exists because no such information exists.

[curiosityandthecat]

Are we talking about Paul Bunyan?  

[joeactor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Wiki's not a bad compilation (above).

I personally find it doubtful that Jesus existed at all.
You would think that someone so influential in his time would have some references outside of his believer's writings.
I have heard that even John the Baptist had more non-biblical sources (have to check on that one).

Skeptic at heart,
JoeActor

[Enoch Root]

Well keep in mind that the kind of people interested in keeping those kinds of records at the time were not the type to associate with Jesus.  The world hadn't invented bloggers.

Myself, I find it a more probable explanation to admit that yes, there likely was a jewish teacher in first century Palestine named Jesus who had a following.  Beyond that I am extremely skeptical of him bearing any resemblance to the Jesus presented in the New Testament, but the very fact that so many people so quickly were jumping on the Christian bandwagon makes it hard for me to think he's just a mythical figure.  I think it raises more questions than it answers.

[curiosityandthecat]

I dunno, a social movement being picked up on isn't really proof of anything other than a group's need for change or a rallying point. Popularity of a figure does not presume existence. Look at Bigfoot.  

[Enoch Root]

Yes but Bigfoot hasn't mobilized anyone to do anything.  Within a generation of Jesus' reported death the Christian movement had reached around the known world, even to Rome, and people were dying for it.

I have no doubt that plenty of the stories surrounding Jesus have been exaggerated or invented.  The whole resurrection myth is the biggest one, and just smacks as far too convenient: he rises from the dead, shows himself to his closest followers, then ascends into heaven so that nobody else can see him.

But I would argue that to have such a strong and immediate following there is likely at least a kernel of truth in it.  Obviously I can't prove the existence of Jesus but I think arguing for his non-existence raises more questions than it answers, and doesn't strike me as the most probable explanation.  I think it's more logical to say there likely was a Jesus, he had a significant and vocal following who spread and exaggerated the stories, and after he was executed by the Romans he took on the form of a near-mythical martyr that people who desperately wanted to believe in given the circumstances in which they lived (under the heel of Roman rule).

[Will]

The following wasn't immediate. It was 60 years after Jesus' supposed birth and maybe 30-40 years after his supposed ascension that the first documented mention of the Christians occurred (iirc, they were being blamed for terrorism, setting fires and such). Moreover, there was no news media to speak of in that time, so ALL news was word of mouth. I'd bet you 20 pieces of silver that if I were able to get back there, I could start a host of rumors about a supposed savior and those rumors would get traction. The Jews were under Roman control and were second class citizens. They weren't all that wealthy either. It's the perfect opportunity to invent a perfect leader.

[Enoch Root]

But is that explanation more likely than the idea of a popular and charismatic leader gaining a cult following who, after his death, impart upon him god-like attributes?  I just think your theory requires a bit more stretching of the imagination.

Besides, why would they need to invent a messianic-like teacher figure when so many existed?  We know that insurrections in Palestine, specifically around the Galilee region, happened almost every other week.  Self-proclaimed prophets were a dime a dozen.  Roman historians have confirmed this and even the bible mentions a couple by name.  Is it not more likely to say that the group who latched onto one just managed to spread their message more effectively than the others?

[BuckeyeInNC]

But is that explanation more likely than the idea of a popular and charismatic leader gaining a cult following who, after his death, impart upon him god-like attributes?  I just think your theory requires a bit more stretching of the imagination.

Oh, I don't know about that.  There is some historical evidence for Santa Claus too and there is quite a following of him also.  Heck even the Christians had to get in on it.

It may be in fact the capacity for imagination that enables such minor figures in their time to reach legendary status with later generations.

[Will]

But is that explanation more likely than the idea of a popular and charismatic leader gaining a cult following who, after his death, impart upon him god-like attributes?  I just think your theory requires a bit more stretching of the imagination.

It's the other way around. Like I said, the historical record at the time is surprisingly complete. We even know the names of prisoners crucified, and among then was not Yeshua bin Yusuf. Moreover, there's no record of anyone by that name from that time being involved in savioring.

Besides, why would they need to invent a messianic-like teacher figure when so many existed?

Which is easier, controlling someone you've convinced (or that's convinced on his own) that he's the son of god or writing about it later? I would think it's obvious.

[Sophus]

Nope, I've found that pretty hard to come by on the Jesus topic.

Really? I find a lot of fundie "historical proof of Jesus!" websites. I figured there would be some Historians out there arguing the reverse. I've read books on it just can't find any information on the web to refer others to.

[Graham]

Isn't this enough proof?