I am not a Christian, and agree with you on that, but this has no bearing on whether or not there was a historical Jesus. I assume, given the way this forum skews, that most of us aren’t talking about historical evidence for Jesus, Son Of God, Miracle Worker, esq. We are talking about the hypothetical Jesus, Son of Some Guy, Preacher That Inspired Grand Stories Of Divinity. And I don’t find it surprising that nobody wrote anything that survived about JSOSGPTIGSOD. I find it highly unlikely that we will ever have any real evidence about JSOSGPTIGSOD at all.
Which leaves open the entirely likely possibility that Jesus H Christ is a composite of several different people. That could well explain the inconsistencies in the gospels.
But that doesn’t eliminate the historical Jesus. The Gospels are a mythical construct to sell the idea that Jesus was the Messiah predicted by Jewish tradition. But, Jesus never made that claim and did not support others who made it.
If you are seriously interested then read Mark 1. It is the proto Gospel and the only one that contains fragments of the original text. There is a description of Jesus at Galilee in Mark 1:22 (ASV):
“And they were astonished at his teaching: for he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes.”
He taught a humanist philosophy, not the biblical scriptures. He joined a group that was running a medicine show and became their star act. They sometimes disagree on funding, philosophy and history. He repeatedly admonishes them to not tell people he is god or that he is working miracles. After 3 years he tells them he is returning home. They panic because that would leave them bankrupt (Jesus paid for the last supper). They will do anything to keep him from leaving. Hence they keep trying various schemes until they manage to get him crucified. It’s been a long time since I read it, but the book “The Passover Plot” covers the crucifixion. .
Most of the book of Mark is a hard sell by the Apostles, but close examination exposes the real Jesus. Of course, the Apostles won and went on to create the elaborate mythology of the misnamed ‘Christianity’.
So again, if you are really interested, read Mark 1 and let’s discuss it. Pay special attention to the woman who touched his garment, That’s where Jesus explains that the stuff about devils and miracles is just eye wash for the ignorant.
Crane
Since this is Comments on Cecil’s Columns, I figure the best way to address the discussion which was returned from the dead is two short quotes from the OG article.
Doubts about the historicity of Christ did not surface until the 18th century. In short, whether or not JC was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody.
There’s no reason to doubt there was likely a person matching some of the details, that a Yeshua was born and was a preacher in the area, and had followers, and preached a creed that may not have found favor with the authorities, local and otherwise. But that probable fact has little to no bearing on the beliefs that have risen since.
But come on. If we start from the premise that a miracle occurred, you can arrive at any conclusion you want.
Which applies equally to the nature of JC and the shroud. If you believe, you believe. If you don’t, the fact that a person and an item exist aren’t likely to change that, especially without any evidence of verifiable supernatural events.
Amen.
The Twelve Stooges?
The Dead Sea scrolls aren’t history, nor current events.
Mostly are copies of OT books, including quite a bit of non-canonical books.
A small part are Jewish religious texts, about various rules and beliefs of a particular sect.
Yes, that is true. So is pretty much everything else from that period. Tacticus, Josephus, Caesar- are we to toss out the Commentarii de Bello Gallico aka The Gallic Wars aka “Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres” ,as Caesar wrote them to justify his wars in Gaul?
Not the four older Gospels. Later “Gospels” were written a century or more later- as wiki puts it -Many non-canonical gospels were also written, all later than the four canonical gospels, and like them advocating the particular theological views of their various authors.
Not really. The ancient world was full of Miracle workers and faith healers.
None of Jesus’s miracles were showy or would be famous, and most can be easily explained by modern medical science- raising the dead? He was only mostly dead- it wasn’t uncommon for people to be assumed dead but they were not. Healing the sick? The Placebo effect, combined with the care of a sure and caring healer- is very strong and can be empirically shown.
The Resurrection was only witnessed by a small handful of his own followers. And even if all that was noted, and written up by non-Followers- the chance of it surviving is about one in a million or less. Trying to prove an ancient person didn’t exist due to lack of contemporary unbiased writing is silly- since we have pretty much zero such evidence of anyone. You can prove Socrates didn’t exist by such a ridiculous method. (Pretty much everything we know of him came from Plato, his student, who wasn’t above making shit up- see Atlantis).
If you want to think Jesus wasn’t divine, that he wasn’t the Son of God, that religion is bunkum- that is fine. But then to deny a real person due to that is just denial.
Most of which are in his life before he was a Preacher, and before he met the Apostles.
Yeah, this sounds like a fantastic plot for a sitcom.
On what writings are you basing this?
Da Vinci has Jesus sitting alone and the 12 are running around like the 3 stooges.
Read some history. And instead of just asking questions- contribute your thoughts and opinions.
The Gospel According to Huckleberry Finn?
It is your claim that I just read, which makes it your responsibility to support it.
If there is supposedly a lot of contemporary evidence of other miracle workers, that makes it even stranger that there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus as a great miracle worker.
My first impression was that Mark wrote an expose of the Apostle Gang.
There is no unbiased contemporary evidence of pretty much anything.
Basically, you are asking for a cite of “the sun rises in the East”.
That’s it- no more Just Asking Questions.
Do we really need a cite for there being a bunch of charlatans running around the Middle East around the time of Jesus? Do y’all think Jim Baker invented religious fraud?
I don’t recall using the word “unbiased”.
Good point.
If your style of debate is Just Asking Questions, then of course you will demand cites for silly things. instead of contributing your own cites and opinions.
No, but we need some evidence that any one of them was specifically an influence on the Jesus story.
If it is being used somehow as an excuse as to why there is no contemporary mention of Jesus the Miracle Worker then, yes, a cite to back up the claim would be nice, especially since the response was for me to go study history which certainly implies that such cites are easily found.