Thread: The Case for a Historical Jesus

The Jesus "birthers" are mostly a bunch of loons and non-scholars. The Jesus = Myth/ Jesus = Horus set are just good for a laugh.

1) Paul spoke of Jesus as an actual historical figure.

A lot of examples. Here's Philippians 2:

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

2) Scholars that have looked at the literary form of the Gospels and the wealth of (often corroborated) details (names, places) contained therein recognize that the evidence for the existence of Jesus is at least as strong as the evidence for other well-known historical figures.

quote: Having shown that the Gospels were intended to be read as history as well as theology, France reveals a significant weakness of the Jesus Myth. Even if written later than the modern consensus, the Gospel authors' intent to write history combined with the confirmed accuracy of many of their references and characterizations show that they are better explained as ancient biographies of a real person who has left behind traditions of his deeds and teachings rather than an entirely mythical creation.

LINK

quote from classical scholar Michael Grant: …if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned… To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has "again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars." In recent years, "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus" or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

quote: "The majority of recent specialized studies," writes Evangelical biblical scholar Craig L. Blomberg in Making Sense of the New Testament, "has recognized that the closest parallels are found among the comparatively trustworthy histories and biographies of writers like the Jewish historian Josephus, and the Greek historians Herodotus and Thucydides".

quote: Various modern archeological discoveries have validated specific details found in the Gospels:

• In 1961 a mosaic from the third century was found in Caesarea Maritima that had the name "Nazareth" in it. This is the first known ancient non-biblical reference to Nazareth.
• Coins with the names of the Herod family have been discovered, including the names of Herod the king, Herod the tetrarch of Galilee (who killed John the Baptist), Herod Agrippa I (who killed James Zebedee), and Herod Agrippa II (before whom Paul testified).
• In 1990 an ossuary was found inscribed with the Aramaic words, "Joseph son of Caiaphas," believed to be a reference to the high priest Caiaphas.
• In 1968 an ossuary was discovered near Jerusalem bearing the bones of a man who had been executed by crucifixion in the first century. These are the only known remains of a man crucified in Roman Palestine, and verify the descriptions given in the Gospels of Jesus' Crucifixion.
• In June 1961 Italian archaeologists excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) uncovered a limestone block. On its face is an inscription (part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar) that reads: "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judaea."

LINK for preceding two quotes

3) quote about Josephus: The most important extra-biblical references to Jesus are found in the writings of Josephus. Although some have questioned the authenticity of the passages, modern scholarship has rightly recognized that one of them is completely authentic and the other, though embellished by Christian scribes, provides an authentic core of material confirming much about Jesus.

LINK

4) Please note that the scholars mentioned above are Jewish and secular as well as Christian. The scholarly consensus rejecting the Jesus = Myth theory exists in spite of an academic establishment sometimes unfriendly to Christian belief.

5) Last, and least, conspiracy theories like the claim that Jesus = Horus or Jesus = Mithras are just zany and entirely worthless.

Check out the article: Jesus is Not a Mithras Redux

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

You perspective is a common one among many American Christian sects. However, this version was formed well after Christ beginning with Paul and peaking at the Councils of Nicea, the first under Emperor Constantine in 325 AD. While they may have been divinely inspired, there is no doubt that the changes and positions take by these people were man-made.

The gnostic philosophy had existed way before christianity. The philosophy borrows copiously from different religions. You have to understand that the christian religion didn't come to the world complete. Currently, it is still changing.

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

Regarding finding the divine within oneself, that is God given. There is only one truth and that truth can be found within ourselves since we are all part of God. Finding that truth allows us to be one with God, but it certainly doesn't make us God. There is nothing arbitrary about it, but people can fool themselves into thinking they are holier-than-thou without being close to the truth.

God is supposed to be transcendent and immanent at the same time. God's self revelation isn't esoteric knowledge. It was for everyone. That is why gnosticism was incompatible with orthodox christianity.

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

The relationship of Jesus and Judas is an interesting one. I believe Judas has been scapegoated for doing service to his master. Like Mary Magdalene being accused for a whore, the scapegoating of Judas came well after the actual events. It is human to want to pass blame and judgment. Many so-called Christians blame the Jews and Judas for the crucifixion of Christ, but every knowledgeable Christian scholar knows that it was God who condemned Christ to a mortal death. Without the sacrifice of Christ there would be no Redemption.

Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

Yes, judas provides a poignant anti-thesis to jesus -- if you are willing to forgo that dan brown conspiracy theory for a second. Judas probably was a zealot. He certainly was educated and occupied a position of trust among the apostles. It certainly is quite possible he seriously misunderstood jesus as the messiah and sought to precipitate a confrontation with their roman overlords. Up until the very end, he couldn't accept jesus as he is.

Originally Posted by kingrat

The gnostic philosophy had existed way before christianity. The philosophy borrows copiously from different religions. You have to understand that the christian religion didn't come to the world complete. Currently, it is still changing.

Dude, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the concepts of Christianity as you posted previously are set in stone then flip around and say it is constantly changing when you back yourself into a corner. So which is it? A major problem with many religions, Christianity included, is the fanatical desire of its followers to embrace the dogma of the religion over the original concept. We hear of self-avowed Christians justifying all sorts of hateful things in the name of Christ even though Christ spoke quite the opposite. How can a Christian truly justify shooting a doctor in the back? He can't. It's evil and hateful which goes directly against the words of Christ but dovetail nicely into the rhetoric of some so-called Christian churches.

Originally Posted by kingrat

Yes, judas provides a poignant anti-thesis to jesus -- if you are willing to forgo that dan brown conspiracy theory for a second. Judas probably was a zealot.

Ad hominem attack. Sorry, but your attack fails since the concept of God's plan for the crucifixion of Christ came long before 20th century fiction writers. Do you believe it was God's plan? If so, then you must believe Judas was part of that plan.

What concepts did he claim were set in stone?

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

Dude, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the concepts of Christianity as you posted previously are set in stone then flip around and say it is constantly changing when you back yourself into a corner. So which is it? A major problem with many religions, Christianity included, is the fanatical desire of its followers to embrace the dogma of the religion over the original concept. We hear of self-avowed Christians justifying all sorts of hateful things in the name of Christ even though Christ spoke quite the opposite. How can a Christian truly justify shooting a doctor in the back? He can't. It's evil and hateful which goes directly against the words of Christ but dovetail nicely into the rhetoric of some so-called Christian churches.

I'm sorry but I did not mean for fundamental christian truths (those considered 'revealed knowledge') to be changing. The ethical problems facing the early christians are not the same confronting contemporary man. That is why jesus authorized the apostles to 'shepherd' his church.

The catholic church currently isn't about condemning other people for their beliefs. Right now, it is concerned more with inter-faith dialogue. Unfortunately, people are more interested in portraying the church in a very bad light.

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

Ad hominem attack. Sorry, but your attack fails since the concept of God's plan for the crucifixion of Christ came long before 20th century fiction writers. Do you believe it was God's plan? If so, then you must believe Judas was part of that plan.

I didn't mean 'zealot' as a derogatory word that it is commonly associated with. Zealotry in 1st century palestine has a specific political agenda. Jesus took in jews of different social and political backgrounds.

Originally Posted by kingrat

Unfortunately, people are more interested in portraying the church in a very bad light.

Agreed here and I believe it is wrong to condemn other religions in this manner. IMHO, people should be more focused upon their relationship with God rather than being busybodies about how others are doing so.

Originally Posted by kingrat

I didn't mean 'zealot' as a derogatory word that it is commonly associated with. Zealotry in 1st century palestine has a specific political agenda. Jesus took in jews of different social and political backgrounds.

Understood. My point was that the historical scapegoating of Judas, like falsely accusing Mary Magdalene of prostitution, is to misunderstand the events of the day.

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

Agreed here and I believe it is wrong to condemn other religions in this manner. IMHO, people should be more focused upon their relationship with God rather than being busybodies about how others are doing so.

Well yes, that is understood.

But the thing is, the church, being a temporal body, is also concerned with ethical issues confronting its 'flock'. It simply cannot ignore its social responsibility -- its magesterium (teaching authority). These teachings are conveyed in various encyclicals. If you've read one, humanae vitae, for instance, it is fashioned in the way of an argument. It is trying to reach, not only the faithful, but anyone who wishes to apply reason to ethical questions.

What most people here remember is that the church is against contraception, abortion, and what not without bothering to know why it is against them in the first place. People who criticize the church, especially in this forum, are almost always ignorant of the reasons behind church teaching. It really is quite unfortunate.

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

Understood. My point was that the historical scapegoating of Judas, like falsely accusing Mary Magdalene of prostitution, is to misunderstand the events of the day.

Unfortunately, there are certain church traditions that have been so ingrained from the beginning, catholics adhere to them without reason. For instance, mary, the mother of jesus, is taught to have been 'immaculate' to the very end. It simply contradicts the church's teaching on marriage and the family, as I understand it.

Fortunately for me, the church also recognizes one's own conscience as a form of god's self-revelation. Whether mary actively partook of the sacrament of marriage after jesus or not is irrelevant to my faith.

Originally Posted by sky writer

I've spent the last week at a retreat. It's made me realize that I can reclaim Jesus and God according to my own personal experience.

That is the point -- the spiritual sense of scripture. Of course, there is nothing wrong with supplementing your personal experiences with that of others. After all, theology has a social dimension to it.

Originally Posted by sky writer

I don't believe in a talking serpent who incited Adam and Eve to create "original sin" the rest of us would be eternally saddled with. I don't believe Jesus came as a "savior" or a redeemer". Those views are based on buying the "original sin" concept.

But we are eternally saddled with sin. Its part of the human condition. Call it occasions of sin, temptation or what not -- everything about our biology and psychology stands in direct opposition to ethical imperatives. This is not meant to diminish your self-esteem. It is meant highlight a fundamental truth -- that man is incapable of salvation by himself -- not from science, philosophy, government and law, economics, etc.

And yes, I think its safe to say that creation story is an allegory.

Originally Posted by sky writer

I don't believe Jesus came to create a religion.

I think it is well established that he intended to establish a universal religion based on love.

He came to show the way to find the truth, that God is within you now, and that we are one with God.

Originally Posted by sky writer

The Jesus story is a wisdom teaching that few Christians realize. JMO.

I'm sorry but wisdom, esoteric or otherwise, was never the intention -- although it is intrinsic in revealed knowledge. He talked about the kingdom like it was a real thing.

If the point were merely some esoteric knowledge he wished to impart to select followers, then the entire crucifixion would have been pointless. His message simply was meant to be demonstrated to all.

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

I agree with this. Christianity isn't the only religion with followers who are missing the main messages of its founding members. Due to mortal limitations, as shown in games like "Gossip" and "Telephone", the message interpretations muddle it over time, but the message remains the same for those who look for it. The Christian Reformation taught us that we don't need a middle man to find God. That concept is as true today as it was during Martin Luther's time. It doesn't matter if those "middle men" are Priests or Televangelists, we each have the capacity to find God on our own if we choose to do so.

I'm sorry but you seem to accept an idea but refuse to extrapolate it to its logical conclusion.

The entire point of the incarnation -- god made flesh -- was supposed to be a 'middle man' between god and man, was it not? God became immanent (god with us) to demonstrate his love.

Originally Posted by sky writer

You seem to have a habit of judging other posters remarks. Inkslinger has his own POV which he's entitled to. He's not a troll.

A pov he can't seem to get across without insulting other people's pov.

In my opinion, he merely snatches bits and pieces of politically-correct nonsense and passes it on as a pov. He then pretends incredulity for not agreeing with him without bothering to explain why anyone should subscribe to his nonsense in the first place.

It simply is a chore stooping to his level.