Somewhat Struggling With Jesus

[PurpleStarGirl]

No one really knows if Jesus is real or not. Jesus Himself as quoted in the Bible all but denies He is God. 

 

 

I read somewhere that 8% of the male population back then were named Jesus so a Jesus probably did exist, just not the one who called himself the Messiah. 

 

What I don't get is why the man's called Jesus of Nazareth when Nazareth only existed as a cemetery and it was forbidden by Jewish law to live anywhere near where dead bodies were buried.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

No one really knows if Jesus is real or not. Jesus Himself as quoted in the Bible all but denies He is God. 

 

 

I read somewhere that 8% of the male population back then were named Jesus so a Jesus probably did exist, just not the one who called himself the Messiah. 

 

What I don't get is why the man's called Jesus of Nazareth when Nazareth only existed as a cemetery and it was forbidden by Jewish law to live anywhere near where dead bodies were buried.

 

Plot reasons/artistic license.

[zuker12]

Or something something confusing about tribes and genealogies (probably metaphorical) and not actual physical places. I dunno, maaaaaan

[Brother Jeff]

Sister Becky,

 

I have spent the last couple of days reading "How Jesus Became God". I am about halfway through it, and I can recommend it even more strongly now. Brother Ehrman starts off discussing how ancient Pagans and ancient Jews saw the spiritual world and how gods could become human and humans could become divine. He then moves on to discussing the biblical text and how God appears in human form, how aspects of God can be viewed as divine apart from God but be God simultaneously (such as Wisdom, hypostasis, I believe), and how a few biblical men have been viewed as God or as having the authority of God. From there, he moves on to a discussion of the historical Jesus and how we can determine what he did or did not actually say, and which stories in the Gospels about him are likely to be historically accurate. Then he discusses what we can and cannot know about the resurrection of Jesus. That's a very brief summary of half of the book. All very interesting stuff! Glory!

[Leahbekah]

Thanks for the recommend, Brother Jeff! I'm still obsessing on Carrier's myth ideas. How do feel about the fact that Bart sees these things as historical (physical) and Carrier sees them as just writings (historical fiction, so to speak)?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Thanks for the recommend, Brother Jeff! I'm still obsessing on Carrier's myth ideas. How do feel about the fact that Bart sees these things as historical (physical) and Carrier sees them as just writings (historical fiction, so to speak)?

I know you asked BroJeff but can I jump in for a moment?   I used to side with Carrier on this, until an atheist I really respect said to me, do you need to believe Jesus was a myth in order to be an atheist?  And I had to be honest and realise, no I didn't.  

 

Even if Jesus was a real person and the non-miracle and non-resurrection parts of the gospels were true, and somehow the inconsistencies between the gospels were just recording and translation issues, I still don't believe he was divine, or had any connection to the divine, or that anything divine exists, because there is no evidence for the divine.

 

If I believed Jesus was a real person, I could just be a person who somehow respected this ordinary person Jesus and overlooked the nasty things he is meant to have said, and believed the words attributed to him were wise or helpful guides for living. I just can't stretch my belief to that.  I believe it is far more likely, that the gospels were written decades later by people who wanted some stories to help with this new cult of Christianity that Paul had started.  Something like 8% of the male population at the time was called Jesus. There could well have been one, more or no Jesuses that formed the basis of the stories. (To me it doesn't matter). I base this belief on the historical evidence and the lack of it (I have a history degree too).

 

Also I want to stress that I don't believe in the miracle or resurrection claims of the gospels.  If you consider these claims using logic and evidence, they completely fail.  Present day miracle claims always fail this test.  Approach these claims from the perspective of someone who was raised in an atheist, secular, skeptical home and who never heard of Jesus or the bible.  To someone like that, these claims are ridiculous.  It's hard to step outside the indoctrination most of us had at such an early age before our ability to reason had developed.  But just keep in mind, to someone who wasn't infected with the god virus, these claims are laughable.

[Brother Jeff]

Thanks for the recommend, Brother Jeff! I'm still obsessing on Carrier's myth ideas. How do feel about the fact that Bart sees these things as historical (physical) and Carrier sees them as just writings (historical fiction, so to speak)?

 

Hi Sister Becky,

 

I think Brother Carrier has some good and useful things to say, but I don't agree with his "Jesus Myth" position at all. The "Jesus was a Myth" theory is not taken seriously by serious biblical scholars, and for good reason, I think. There's just no good reason to believe that Jesus never actually lived in history. And we have at least three reliable mentions of him from contemporary authors -- two mentions by Josephus and one by Tacitus. The two times Josephus mentions Jesus are particularly convincing. While both mentions do contain later Christian interpolations, once the suspect material is removed, the mentions of Jesus remain intact. Here's some food for thought. This is a debate of sorts between Tim O'Neill (Jesus existed) and David Fitzgerald (author of a book titled "Nailed" and a Jesus Myth theorist):

 

Tim O'Neill

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html

 

David Fitzgerald

http://davefitzgerald.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/nailed-completely-brilliant-or-tragic.html

 

Tim O'Neill

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2014/01/did-jesus-exist-jesus-myth-theory-again.html?m=1

 

As far as Bart Ehrman or Richard Carrier goes? I side with Bart when it comes to the historical Jesus. He did indeed exist and live in history, but he was not divine. He was just one of many itinerant Jewish apocalyptic preachers in 1st Century Palestine. He is remembered today only because his followers believed he had been raised from the dead and they started a new religion based on his teachings. Make sense? 

 

Glory!

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I also think those followers did not necessarily see/imagine a "resurrected" Jesus.  (I use quotes because I think the concept is ridiculous). I think the followers of Paul who heard the gospel stories about Jesus believed that people had seen R-Jesus.  No different to contemporary xians.  Whoever wrote those stories, I think, embellished them, and people believed that the stories were eyewitness accounts.

[Leahbekah]

Sister Becky,

 

I understand your questions and fears, but you can rest easy. The Gospels are myth! They were all written decades after the events they purport to describe by anonymous authors, and the Jesus of the Gospels (he is presented very differently in all four Gospels) is also a myth. Sorry Brother Barker got smoked publicly, but this glorious video by Dr. Richard Carrier should help.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILldt2XHZw0

 

Check out these links also:

 

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/bibleanalysis.html

 

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/jesus.html

 

Glory!

When you made this reply, I thought you sided with Carrier! lol Is this something you're also working out? I had listened to a talk by Bart E. once but it was short... I will definitely go back to him and see what he's got to say, as well. Thanks for the links!

[Brother Jeff]

 

Sister Becky,

 

I understand your questions and fears, but you can rest easy. The Gospels are myth! They were all written decades after the events they purport to describe by anonymous authors, and the Jesus of the Gospels (he is presented very differently in all four Gospels) is also a myth. Sorry Brother Barker got smoked publicly, but this glorious video by Dr. Richard Carrier should help.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILldt2XHZw0

 

Check out these links also:

 

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/bibleanalysis.html

 

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/jesus.html

 

Glory!

When you made this reply, I thought you sided with Carrier! lol Is this something you're also working out? I had listened to a talk by Bart E. once but it was short... I will definitely go back to him and see what he's got to say, as well. Thanks for the links!

 

 

No, it's worked out for me quite solidly. On the historical Jesus issue, I'm firmly in Bart Ehrman's camp. I do think Carrier has some useful info to share, but not his views on the historical Jesus. 

 

I was at one time strongly considering the "Jesus Myth" theory, but once I encountered Tim O'Neill and looked at it from his side of things, I saw how weak the theory is and why it's not taken seriously by the vast majority of biblical scholars.

[Leahbekah]

FreeThinkerNZ, I understand completely. The worry has subsided substantially just by going through the references in this thread and knowing that this is information many here has sifted through, and still come out atheist. Truthfully, my goal isn't to be an atheist (although I am one), but just to stop denying the evidence .. but this was a huge one for me while a Christian so I'm just needing to work through it and see where it takes me. I do remind myself often of the horrors associated with Christianity, and all the contradictions in the bible, and so on. I usually come back to thinking that even if there was/is a god... I wouldn't be able to "serve" that one without being forced!

[Leahbekah]

Have sifted through*** (can't edit!)

[Brother Jeff]

Here's a good Wiki page on the historicity of Jesus:

 

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

 

Glory!

[PurpleStarGirl]

I also think those followers did not necessarily see/imagine a "resurrected" Jesus.  (I use quotes because I think the concept is ridiculous). I think the followers of Paul who heard the gospel stories about Jesus believed that people had seen R-Jesus.  No different to contemporary xians.  Whoever wrote those stories, I think, embellished them, and people believed that the stories were eyewitness accounts.

 

 

Seeing someone mention the supposed resurrection reminds me of something I was looking at a while ago.

 

http://www.livescience.com/50444-james-ossuary-talpiot-tomb-gallery.html

 

Some people say they found the final resting place of Jesus and his family beneath an apartment building in Jerusalem. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but it does make a person wonder.

[Brother Jeff]

 

I also think those followers did not necessarily see/imagine a "resurrected" Jesus.  (I use quotes because I think the concept is ridiculous). I think the followers of Paul who heard the gospel stories about Jesus believed that people had seen R-Jesus.  No different to contemporary xians.  Whoever wrote those stories, I think, embellished them, and people believed that the stories were eyewitness accounts.

 

 

Seeing someone mention the supposed resurrection reminds me of something I was looking at a while ago.

 

http://www.livescience.com/50444-james-ossuary-talpiot-tomb-gallery.html

 

Some people say they found the final resting place of Jesus and his family beneath an apartment building in Jerusalem. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but it does make a person wonder.

 

 

Not true. I watched the TV documentary and it was interesting, but this has been debunked.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/filmmaker-says-jerusalem-tomb-houses-some-of-jesuss-earliest-followers/2012/04/05/gIQAjCioxS_story.html

[Brother Jeff]

Sister Becky,

 

Here's an excellent interview to go along with Brother Bart's glorious book:

 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

I also think those followers did not necessarily see/imagine a "resurrected" Jesus.  (I use quotes because I think the concept is ridiculous). I think the followers of Paul who heard the gospel stories about Jesus believed that people had seen R-Jesus.  No different to contemporary xians.  Whoever wrote those stories, I think, embellished them, and people believed that the stories were eyewitness accounts.

 

 

Seeing someone mention the supposed resurrection reminds me of something I was looking at a while ago.

 

http://www.livescience.com/50444-james-ossuary-talpiot-tomb-gallery.html

 

Some people say they found the final resting place of Jesus and his family beneath an apartment building in Jerusalem. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but it does make a person wonder.

 

 

I would normally check out the link but I see BroJeff beat me to it so I will save time by just commenting on these sorts of stories generally.

 

Whenever I see a story like this I try to approach it skeptically and test it using logic and evidence.  This simple approach will get you far in life, whether someone is offering you a health product/service, or telling you a ghost story, or trying to convert you to their religion.  This story falls into the latter category.

 

The xianity claims usually fall into certain well known categories, such as signs that biblical prophecies are about to come true, or someone they know had MS/cancer cured, or some evidence of biblical miracles being true has been found.

 

Now, if such claims were true, that might mean biblegod exists and we need to believe in him and be saved or else we fry.  So there is a lot riding on it, and they have a very strong motive for making the claim and hoping we believe it.

 

That is all the more reason to be extra skeptical, and to require extraordinary evidence.

 

But these claims don't even meet the test of ordinary evidence.  There must have been hundreds, maybe thousands of claims that people have found the remains of Jesus somewhere, or his burial clothes, or the cross, or something, anything that people might believe.

 

Then there is the lack of logic... if there are remains, then did he rise from the dead and ascend into heaven or what?

 

If some skeleton gets produced, (which would have had to be well preserved after all that time), carbon dating can check its age, and there may be other technology now or in the future that can determine more about the remains.

 

There is also the statistical probability issue... it's got to be extremely unlikely that the actual remains of Jesus would be preserved and found after all this time.  And why would an omni everything god organise it this way, when he inspired the bible to be written to say something different.

 

Without even looking at the article or BroJeff's linked articles, I can already think of a number of lines of enquiry to test the claim using logic and evidence.  And that's just from reading stuff on ex-c and other websites about skepticism and atheism for a little over a year.  I believe anyone can learn the skills needed to review claims like this skeptically.

 

Maybe I should look at the article now, lol.

[PurpleStarGirl]

 

 

I also think those followers did not necessarily see/imagine a "resurrected" Jesus.  (I use quotes because I think the concept is ridiculous). I think the followers of Paul who heard the gospel stories about Jesus believed that people had seen R-Jesus.  No different to contemporary xians.  Whoever wrote those stories, I think, embellished them, and people believed that the stories were eyewitness accounts.

 

 

Seeing someone mention the supposed resurrection reminds me of something I was looking at a while ago.

 

http://www.livescience.com/50444-james-ossuary-talpiot-tomb-gallery.html

 

Some people say they found the final resting place of Jesus and his family beneath an apartment building in Jerusalem. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but it does make a person wonder.

 

 

I would normally check out the link but I see BroJeff beat me to it so I will save time by just commenting on these sorts of stories generally.

 

Whenever I see a story like this I try to approach it skeptically and test it using logic and evidence.  This simple approach will get you far in life, whether someone is offering you a health product/service, or telling you a ghost story, or trying to convert you to their religion.  This story falls into the latter category.

 

The xianity claims usually fall into certain well known categories, such as signs that biblical prophecies are about to come true, or someone they know had MS/cancer cured, or some evidence of biblical miracles being true has been found.

 

Now, if such claims were true, that might mean biblegod exists and we need to believe in him and be saved or else we fry.  So there is a lot riding on it, and they have a very strong motive for making the claim and hoping we believe it.

 

That is all the more reason to be extra skeptical, and to require extraordinary evidence.

 

But these claims don't even meet the test of ordinary evidence.  There must have been hundreds, maybe thousands of claims that people have found the remains of Jesus somewhere, or his burial clothes, or the cross, or something, anything that people might believe.

 

Then there is the lack of logic... if there are remains, then did he rise from the dead and ascend into heaven or what?

 

If some skeleton gets produced, (which would have had to be well preserved after all that time), carbon dating can check its age, and there may be other technology now or in the future that can determine more about the remains.

 

There is also the statistical probability issue... it's got to be extremely unlikely that the actual remains of Jesus would be preserved and found after all this time.  And why would an omni everything god organise it this way, when he inspired the bible to be written to say something different.

 

Without even looking at the article or BroJeff's linked articles, I can already think of a number of lines of enquiry to test the claim using logic and evidence.  And that's just from reading stuff on ex-c and other websites about skepticism and atheism for a little over a year.  I believe anyone can learn the skills needed to review claims like this skeptically.

 

Maybe I should look at the article now, lol.

 

 

To me it would indicate that there was a historical figure called Jesus but I'd still be skeptical that he was the son of a supposed deity.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

To me it would indicate that there was a historical figure called Jesus but I'd still be skeptical that he was the son of a supposed deity.

 

 

IMO that's a reasonable conclusion to draw from the bible, and it doesn't mean you're a believer.  I'd say that view fits in the camp of nonbeliever.

 

I think other equally reasonable conclusions are that the biblical stories are entirely made up, or loosely based on one or more persons.  I am undecided between the three views, and I'm fine with that.

[♦ ficino ♦]

For a while I was looking seriously into the Jesus was a real guy vs. Jesus is a figure of myth debate. A huge number of posts fly around on various websites! From the academic publications I've read, and having gone over the Greek texts frequently, I'd say that the two testimonies to the historical Jesus in Josephus are extremely suspect. The so-called Testimonium Flavianum, the paragraph in Antiquities 18, does not really fit in context, where Josephus is enumerating various calamities that befell the Jews under Pilate. If that is a later interpolation, the cryptic reference in Antiquities 20 to "James the brother of Jesus so-called Christ" falls, too, since it comes out of nowhere to identify the unclear by the unclear.  At the least, HJ proponents can't claim these two passages as evidence in any strong way.

 

One problem with the Tacitus passage is, what was his source?  If it was Christian info funneled to him by Pliny, it doesn't stand as independent corroboration.  Pliny interrogated Christians, so this info may have come from them.

 

But it does at least seem to locate a "Christus" or "Chrestus" cult in the early second century.  How did it start, then?  Seems logical it started in the first century.  And Paul's letters, though they say very little about Jesus' life, do at least speak of him as a real person.

 

There's an interesting debate between Zeba Crook, a biblical scholar who is not a conservative Christian (what I've read of him makes me doubt he's a Christian at all) and Carrier.  I think Crook's position is stronger. It boils down to, we think Jesus was a real wandering preacher who was crucified, but we can't be sure of much else about him.

 

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2014/06/richard-carrier-vs-zeba-crook-jesus-of.html

 

another version:

 

 

[PurpleStarGirl]

For a while I was looking seriously into the Jesus was a real guy vs. Jesus is a figure of myth debate. A huge number of posts fly around on various websites! From the academic publications I've read, and having gone over the Greek texts frequently, I'd say that the two testimonies to the historical Jesus in Josephus are extremely suspect. The so-called Testimonium Flavianum, the paragraph in Antiquities 18, does not really fit in context, where Josephus is enumerating various calamities that befell the Jews under Pilate. If that is a later interpolation, the cryptic reference in Antiquities 20 to "James the brother of Jesus so-called Christ" falls, too, since it comes out of nowhere to identify the unclear by the unclear.  At the least, HJ proponents can't claim these two passages as evidence in any strong way.

 

One problem with the Tacitus passage is, what was his source?  If it was Christian info funneled to him by Pliny, it doesn't stand as independent corroboration.  Pliny interrogated Christians, so this info may have come from them.

 

But it does at least seem to locate a "Christus" or "Chrestus" cult in the early second century.  How did it start, then?  Seems logical it started in the first century.  And Paul's letters, though they say very little about Jesus' life, do at least speak of him as a real person.

 

There's an interesting debate between Zeba Crook, a biblical scholar who is not a conservative Christian (what I've read of him makes me doubt he's a Christian at all) and Carrier.  I think Crook's position is stronger. It boils down to, we think Jesus was a real wandering preacher who was crucified, but we can't be sure of much else about him.

 

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2014/06/richard-carrier-vs-zeba-crook-jesus-of.html

 

another version:

 

 

 

Considering Josephus was born after Jesus's death, I think those testimonies should be considered suspicious.

[wyson]

Some great debate here.

 

Don't worry if you feel convinced that Jesus was the Lord and feel a tug to return to Christianity.  Its a normal part of deconversion.

 

Only last month, I was thinking through the merits of the concept of original sin and its power to describe how people and the world work.  Part of it, was trying it on as a "true" concept.

 

There is nothing wrong with being enquiring and open minded.

 

Just make sure you commit to real research and debate/thought spread over lots of sources over many years.

 

One week you might think, yes, Jesus is Lord.  Then some other argument will convince you otherwise.  Over time, ON BALANCE you will start falling one way or the other without struggle.

[Brother Jeff]

The vast majority of biblical scholars accept the Josephus and Tacitus mentions of Jesus (after obvious later Christian interpolations are removed in the case of Josephus) as authentic and valid, and I think they are correct. I see no valid reason to believe that Jesus didn't live as a real, historical person. The scholarly consensus view is that he was one of many itinerant apocalyptic preachers in 1st Century Palestine. The only reason Jesus is more than an obscure footnote in history now is the fact that his followers started a successful new religion around him when they came to believe that he had been raised from the dead. 

 

This lecture by Bart Ehrman is well worth the time to watch. I am currently reading his book "How Jesus Became God", and I have learned a lot. It's given me a new respect for the Gospels, the letters of Paul and the story of Jesus, though I remain a nonbeliever. It's really fascinating stuff!

 

 

This link deals with the evidence for the historical Jesus, including Josephus and Tacitus, and the problems associated with the "Christ Myth" theory.

 

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2014/01/did-jesus-exist-jesus-myth-theory-again.html?m=1

 

Glory!