Jump to content

Did Christianity start with a real human Jesus?


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Eise said:

I do not recognise that you read Ehrman. Time was also a bit short for that. So I leave you your point.

Ehrman is not the gold standard on this issue anymore than Carrier is. 

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, some called him uncle Dave; we can't all be right...

If some called him uncle Dave the answer to the OP's question is no. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 330
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Suits me. Your expectation of a pat on the back, for the lamest of argument is tiresome. And claiming a consensus for it, as justification is laughable. What it says is, I can't justify it with my own

Eise often backs up his claims with an imaginary consensus. He often claims to know what many/most/all scholars/historians/scientists think. If this is a scienceforum then his comments in this thread

That's a lie. Did you watch his videos?

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Ehrman is not the gold standard on this issue anymore than Carrier is. 

If some called him uncle Dave the answer to the OP's question is no. 

Which question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No-one needs a biography... to see who strikes the match.

 

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, some called him uncle Dave; we can't all be right...

Please stop posting until you are off the meds. You are going to be rather embarrassed otherwise...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2018 at 3:46 PM, mistermack said:

when I looked critically at what he was saying, it's not very convincing. He makes an awful lot of just one or two instances in Paul's epistles, where Paul says something like "I met Peter, and James, the brother of Jesus".

I think it's a very ambiguous passage. Peter was Peter, every Christian knew he was considered the Leader. And James the brother of Jesus could have just signified he was a disciple, one of the "brotherhood", or it could mean that James was from the House of David

There are other passages with more context about his brothers/sisters/family/relatives that you may not find as ambiguous:

 Matthew 13:53-57 : And when Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there.   Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?  Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”  And they took offense at him.

But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”

Mark 6:1-4 : He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.”

Mark 3:20-21; 31-32 : then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat.   And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”

And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.”

 

On 8/13/2018 at 3:46 PM, mistermack said:

Why I can't buy the real person story, is that Paul, only 20 years after the apparent death of Jesus, and having met his supposed sidekick Peter in person, wasn't FULL of Jesus in his letters. And yet there's hardly a mention. It should have been Jesus this, Jesus that, right through from beginning to end.

Paul refers to Jesus/Christ approximately 623 times in his  epistles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

There are other passages with more context about his brothers/sisters/family/relatives that you may not find as ambiguous:

 Matthew 13:53-57 ............................

Yes, the gospels are much more specific. The trouble is that they are generally agreed to be works of fiction, or at any rate, so fictionalised that there is nothing of historical value in them. If you're a believer, then you will choose to believe them. But there's nothing in them reliable enough to call history.

15 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

Paul refers to Jesus/Christ approximately 623 times in his  epistles.

Yes, but only half of those epistles are thought to actually be by Paul. The other 7 are forgeries. 

In the half that are generally accepted to be by Paul, yes there are references to Jesus. But only in the vaguest possible terms, such as "Jesus who died and rose again".

There's no disputing that he was writing about a CHARACTER called Jesus. And that there were various stories about him being the prophesied messiah, as well as the Son of God. But there's nowhere in Paul's epistles that you can you can get any reference to a real Jesus who died only about 20 years previously. That's why a lot is made of the words, "James, the brother of Jesus". It's the only scrap of a reference to what might have been a real living Jewish man. But it's very tenuous and ambiguous. I would want and have expected loads of biographical stuff, and direct quotes, in Paul's letters, if Jesus had been real, and Paul had met with Peter and James, as he claimed. 

Jame could easily have been given the title "the brother of Jesus" much later, as the gospel stories of a real Jesus grew up around the original "Son of God" legends. Since the earliest copies of Paul's Epistles date from the year 200 and later, the title "the brother of Jesus" could have been added at any stage. If it was a widely used title in the year 200, people making copies would see nothing wrong with adding it.  Going by the wide differences in the gospels, they certainly saw nothing wrong with adding to documents they were copying, sometime making wholesale changes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2018 at 7:38 PM, Strange said:

Please stop posting until you are off the meds. You are going to be rather embarrassed otherwise...

 

Thanks for the advice, But I'm home now and the meds are distinctly less funky; although I doubt this will be the last time I embarrass myself... :) :rolleyes:

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎16‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 4:51 PM, Eise said:

Please provide us with the source texts, tell us how you interpreted them, coming to the conclusion that Jesus is a contraction of several people, added with some magical fantasies.

I don't have source texts.  Why are the gospels written in third person, by eyewitnesses? You would expect (Jesus)him to write all the stories/teachings down.

Why were people there to observe and memorize everything that happened, even before Jesus gained fame?

How can one person write about his birth and Death, like in the gospel of Luke and Matthew? This implies 2 unrelated persons were at Jesus's birth, as a young child (without any reason for being there) and memorize everything that happened.

The gospels were written after Jesus's death...so people memorized everything Jesus did and said, even in the time before Jesus was famous and they had a reason to be there.?

If Jesus wasn't a real person that explains a lot.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Itoero said:

I don't have source texts.  Why are the gospels written in third person, by eyewitnesses? You would expect (Jesus)him to write all the stories/teachings down.

Many societies throughout history rely on the spoken word (oral stories) but just because none have been found doesn't mean none were written.

It was 2,000 years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Many societies throughout history rely on the spoken word (oral stories) but just because none have been found doesn't mean none were written.

It was 2,000 years ago.

Societies based them on scripture. Do you know about the Gospels?

Edited by Itoero
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Only the ones I've read. 

Then why do you say : "societies throughout history rely on the spoken word"...….They don't rely on spoken word but on scripture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mistermack said:

Jame could easily have been given the title "the brother of Jesus" much later, as the gospel stories of a real Jesus grew up around the original "Son of God" legends.

It is sort of ironic that the same many of the same people who argue James's title of "Brother of Jesus" literal must mean James was the biological sibling of a real human Jesus yet don't feel Jesus's title is literal. They read the Gospels al la carte. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is sort of ironic that the same many of the same people who argue James's title of "Brother of Jesus" literal must mean James was the biological sibling of a real human Jesus yet don't feel Jesus's title is literal. They read the Gospels al la carte. 

In this case, the irony is a double-edged sword...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, Christianity could have started in two ways. Either with a real man called Jesus, or with a "Son of God" legend that grew up in the same way as the legends of Satan and Angel Gabriel etc. 

If it came from an original "Son of God" cult, within the Jewish religion, it would have been one of many. There were LOADS of cults within the Jewish religion. Obviously, they all came from fabricated stories, so fabricating a son of god legend is nothing out of the ordinary.

If that happened, then the stories gradually morphed from a heavenly son of god into a flesh and blood Jesus. We have the flesh and blood part, in the gospels. So by the year 70, the talk was definitely of a real human Jesus. 

It's what went before, that is a mystery. Paul's letters (starting around year 55) seem to be in a transitional period. There is some reference to Jesus as a man, but very vague and limited. It's my guess that as you go back in time, it would have been less stories of a real man, and more of a heavenly god. Unfortunately, it seems like anything earlier has been erased. That in itself is suspicious. As are the existence obvious later forgeries, trying to create a false history. 

Churches like to control what history people read. The various religious authorities sat on the dead sea scrolls for decades, until they started releasing select bits. It's obvious that nothing controversial will ever be allowed to come out from them. The actual truth is of no interest to them. They want you to believe what THEY choose for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The way I see it, Christianity could have started in two ways. Either with a real man called Jesus, or with a "Son of God" legend that grew up in the same way as the legends of Satan and Angel Gabriel etc.

I'm an atheist, which way do you think I voted?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm an atheist, which way do you think I voted?

You seem convinced that imaginary figures can't get going. There must have been a real Sherlock Holmes, and James Bond. The angel Gabriel, do you think he started out as a real man? Stories can and do come out of nothing. Religious fanatics dream them up. Sometimes literally. Sometimes from earlier legends, sometimes borrowing from other religions. 

I'm willing to concede that there COULD have been a real Jesus. But probably not. But you don't seem to concede the opposite. I'd like to hear why you think it's impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You seem convinced that imaginary figures can't get going. There must have been a real Sherlock Holmes, and James Bond. The angel Gabriel, do you think he started out as a real man? Stories can and do come out of nothing. Religious fanatics dream them up. Sometimes literally. Sometimes from earlier legends, sometimes borrowing from other religions. 

I'm willing to concede that there COULD have been a real Jesus. But probably not. But you don't seem to concede the opposite. I'd like to hear why you think it's impossible.

Let's roll up the flags and imagine what could be real; did I say impossible?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The way I see it, Christianity could have started in two ways. Either with a real man called Jesus, or with a "Son of God" legend that grew up in the same way as the legends of Satan and Angel Gabriel etc. 

If it came from an original "Son of God" cult, within the Jewish religion, it would have been one of many. There were LOADS of cults within the Jewish religion. Obviously, they all came from fabricated stories, so fabricating a son of god legend is nothing out of the ordinary.

If that happened, then the stories gradually morphed from a heavenly son of god into a flesh and blood Jesus. We have the flesh and blood part, in the gospels. So by the year 70, the talk was definitely of a real human Jesus. 

It's what went before, that is a mystery. Paul's letters (starting around year 55) seem to be in a transitional period. There is some reference to Jesus as a man, but very vague and limited. It's my guess that as you go back in time, it would have been less stories of a real man, and more of a heavenly god. Unfortunately, it seems like anything earlier has been erased. That in itself is suspicious. As are the existence obvious later forgeries, trying to create a false history. 

Churches like to control what history people read. The various religious authorities sat on the dead sea scrolls for decades, until they started releasing select bits. It's obvious that nothing controversial will ever be allowed to come out from them. The actual truth is of no interest to them. They want you to believe what THEY choose for you.

Jesus is supposed to be the fulfillment of prophecy from the old testament. It isn't a story which begins in the era associated with Jesus but rather predates Jesus significantly. To the authors of the new testament Jesus was the messiah Judaism prophecies is coming. Christians split from Judaism specifically over their competing views about Jesus.   

Quote

 Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfillments of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus. Judaism also forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God.[2][3] Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that have not yet occurred, including the return of Jews to their homeland and the rebuilding of The Temple, a Messianic Age of peace[4] and understanding during which "the knowledge of God" fills the earth."[5] And since Jews believe that none of these events occurred during the lifetime of Jesus (nor have they occurred afterwards), he was not the Messiah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism's_view_of_Jesus

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Let's roll up the flags and imagine what could be real; did I say impossible?

You said it started with a real person. Or did you mean it in the same way that Sherlock Holmes started with a real person?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Jesus is supposed to be the fulfillment of prophecy from the old testament. It isn't a story which begins in the era associated with Jesus but rather predates Jesus significantly. To the authors of the new testament Jesus was the messiah Judaism prophecies is coming. Christians split from Judaism specifically over their competing views about Jesus.   

.

The Jews don't accept a lot of those so-called prophecies as anything of the sort. But others did. And it all gets mixed and confused with other gods and other stories.

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Nope, did you?

So what did you mean then, when you said it started with a real person?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The Jews don't accept a lot of those so-called prophecies as anything of the sort. But others did. And it all gets mixed and confused with other gods and other stories.

Right, I was simply providing more context on the "son of god" legend part of your post. Today some religious extremist believe we are on the precipice of a second coming and mix they radical views in with their politics but back then Religion was inseparable from cultural identity and politics. Just new political movement today change the focus of a nation  so to did the rise of different religion change law and society and the way those in power choose to reflect on history and preserve it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Itoero said:

 Why are the gospels written in third person, by eyewitnesses? You would expect (Jesus)him to write all the stories/teachings down.

Why were people there to observe and memorize everything that happened, even before Jesus gained fame?

How can one person write about his birth and Death, like in the gospel of Luke and Matthew? This implies 2 unrelated persons were at Jesus's birth, as a young child (without any reason for being there) and memorize everything that happened.

The gospels were written after Jesus's death...so people memorized everything Jesus did and said, even in the time before Jesus was famous and they had a reason to be there.?

Can  someone answer on this:?

22 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Where did you read that?

The based them on the gospels (=scripture)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2018 at 7:43 AM, mistermack said:

Yes, the gospels are much more specific. The trouble is that they are generally agreed to be works of fiction

Wait a minute, you were the one that referenced the gospels in the first place when you suggested that James was from the "House of David," rather than the literal brother of Jesus as Paul stated. 

I simply used the same standard that you did by referencing the gospels, but provided a context that might offer more insight into what Paul meant when he said "brother."

 

On 8/15/2018 at 9:03 AM, mistermack said:

If you put yourself in Paul's shoes, how could you write such a letter, and not include a load of stuff about the real Jesus? Especially if he had just recently met with Peter, the sidekick of Jesus, and James, the actual BROTHER of the man. 

That's the problem, Paul didn't "just recently" meet with Peter and James when he wrote his epistles.  He met them just a few years after his conversion, well before the churches in his letters even existed.

Paul was writing to congregations of well grounded believers with their own set of leaders in Churches that had already been established for years.  For example, the Church in Rome had already been around for almost 10 years when Paul decided to write them from afar.

It wasn't like Paul's letters were a collection of bible tracks aimed at non-believers with the hope of converting them - that ground work had already been established, whether by Paul, or other apostles and early believers.

If you were in Paul's shoes, would you you establish a Church and repeat the same events of Jesus's daily life ad nauseam for 10 years,  and then send letters to everyone from afar about the same life events?

Paul was essentially writing doctrine for these churches, he was addressing contemporary issues and problems within those churches.  There was a need for people to understand what it meant for Jesus to be the Christ and how it related to OT scriptures that many gentile believers were unfamiliar with.  Finally, he was giving instruction on how to practically apply  these teachings to their daily lives.

 

 

 

Edited by DirtyChai
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.