The Historical Jesus

[brewer]

So are you telling me that you know what God's standard ought to be?

Since you've failed to provide evidence for god there can't be a standard for god. Still waiting, stop dodging, provide concrete evidence for your god.

[no one]

christiboi is about as historic as all other fabled flights of fantasy conjured up by fearful, ignorant, arrogant upright apes.

There's a "history" of the upright apes, dreaming it up and talking about it, but as far as it existing, it never did.

[Ravenshire]

Check me here guys:

The authors made truth claims...

New religions can't be started...

Eyewitness testimony of miracles...

They wouldn't die for a lie...

The crucifiction was special and unique...

I think I got a "Bad Christer Argument Bingo" winner here. And all from just one post.

The authors didn't just make truth claims, they also made these claims during a time when there were living witnesses to the events in question who would've called them out for telling lies. Many of them died for those claims as well.

       When did I say new religions can't be started?
What I was saying is that if your new religion is based on something verifiably false then it will be much more difficult for it to spread. 

Is all eyewitness testimony of the supernatural wrong by default? 

Yes, most people won't die for something which they know to be a lie. 

     Oh and yes the crusifixion of Jesus was unique, even from a totally secular perspective; this is because Jesus was well known for his ability to talk his way out of a tight situation. And yet, when faced with certain torture, humiliation and death, he didn't bother to open his mouth in his own defense. 

Also, the crucifixion is one of the biggest events in all of human history. So yes it is a very big and unique event, not just because a person died on a cross but because one of the most famous people died on a cross. Indeed, there was something peculiar about this one Roman crusifixion which stands out against all others.

You desperately need to audit a comparative religions class. There is nothing about your religion that is unique. It was all stolen from previous beliefs. You're bringing nothing new to the table. We've heard all this bunk before, and found absolutely none of it convincing.

[The Grand Nudger]

     The point I was making is that Jesus' crucifixion should've been the end of his ministry. Even the disciples themselves were discouraged by it. They returned to their day jobs because from every angle it appeared as though their messiah was a fraud. That's how most people of that time would've interpreted Jesus' death. Gods don't bleed, how could someone who claimed to be the son of God be overcome by his enemies? If Jesus really was crucified then not only would the disciples have given up on him, so would everyone else. He would've gone down in history as a false messiah.

The reason why Muslims sacrifice their own lives for Allah is because their beliefs are sincere. 

     The fact that most of the early apostles proved that they were willing to die for their faith does add something to the veracity of their claims. Will people die for something that they know to be a lie? Some of these apostles claimed to have traveled with Christ and watched him as he performed miracles. And for some reason all of these witnesses, when isolated, when facing certain death; were still willing to testify to the end that Jesus is the Truth. Even if denying him meant saving their own skin. How many other religions can say that about their earliest proponents?

Of course you are always free to say, "but that doesn't mean that its true." With regards to ancient history you will always have that luxury. All I'm pointing out is that there is plenty of good evidence to support the message of the Gospel.

You claim that Jesus did not rise again, what do you base that on?

Jesus' crucifixion was the end of the historical jesus ministry.  What you know today as christianity wasn't his invention.  That would be Paul.

I'm reminding you that the historical jesus didn't rise from the grave.  That would be christ.  Religion, not history.  If you wanted to talk about christ that's cool, but christ and historical jesus are not the same character...and if you're referring to what you think is good evidence for the historical jesus as though it were evidence for christ, you're simply mistaken.

[Silver]

Paul corrupted the message, and Christianity praises him for it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe, though it's worth pointing out that the search for the historical paul ran into the same issues that the search for the historical jesus did. It may be unfair to lay the blame for the content of the new testament at the historical pauls feet in much the same way it is with respect to the historical jesus. A hagiography of a hagiographer. Even in the text, the character of paul recognizes this. He has become all things to all men. The character believes that the end justifies the means. That this has happened so that he might save some of the people.

[Mister Agenda]

The authors didn't just make truth claims, they also made these claims during a time when there were living witnesses to the events in question who would've called them out for telling lies. Many of them died for those claims as well.

They also made them during a time when a living witness the next village over might never hear the claim until it's in wide circulation and then are you going to believe what a leader says that everyone knows or that one guy who says he was there and the widespread story is wrong? It was a time of no fact-checkers, no journalistic standards, and barely historical standards.

       When did I say new religions can't be started?
What I was saying is that if your new religion is based on something verifiably false then it will be much more difficult for it to spread. 

I'm not so sure about that. There seem to be several extant religions that have spread pretty well in their mere decades or century or two of existence despite being verifiably false. I think Mormonism and Scientology are verifiably false, do you disagree?

Is all eyewitness testimony of the supernatural wrong by default? 

It's not wrong by default, but it is by default not historical.

     Oh and yes the crusifixion of Jesus was unique, even from a totally secular perspective; this is because Jesus was well known for his ability to talk his way out of a tight situation. And yet, when faced with certain torture, humiliation and death, he didn't bother to open his mouth in his own defense. 

I admit I haven't heard the viewpoint that Jesus should have been able to fast-talk his way out of getting crucified.

Also, the crucifixion is one of the biggest events in all of human history. So yes it is a very big and unique event, not just because a person died on a cross but because one of the most famous people died on a cross. Indeed, there was something peculiar about this one Roman crusifixion which stands out against all others.

You THINK it was one of the biggest events in human history because you're a Christian. To the rest of the world it either didn't actually happen or it was just another poor schlub horribly executed by Roman authorities. Jesus's fame seems largely posthumous, given contemporary historians didn't make note of him.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure I'd want "started a religion" competing in the same category as agriculture, metallurgy, germ theory, and computing. The historical jesus is a background character for the history of an institution, which plugged along the way it did regardless of what set of facts is the true set of facts about the basis of the character in the new testament...up to and including full-on christ. Why christoians believe what they do today has everything to do with the former..and little -if anything- to do with the latter.

Whether, for example, a christian life was a good one. Turns out the christian doesn't think that christ, let alone a historical jesus, has any real bearing on that.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@h311inac311

So are you telling me that you know what God's standard ought to be? And are you telling me that you know that his standard has been violated by our modern understanding of the manuscript tradition?

Well, isn’t that your own position? Your immutable, perfect, all-wise, all-knowing, all-loving God has allowed errors to creep into His holy writ. Since we don’t know - and can never know - what the original text was, this roadmap to salvation is less than worthless. Scripture says that God deliberately deludes people for the express purpose of tricking them into damnation. How do you know that these seemingly harmless textual errors aren’t more of the same?

Boru

[Secular Elf]

I think that it has not really been established, based on the evidence, that there was a particular Yeshua (it was a common name in 1st Century CE Palestine) who actually claimed he was a son of Yahweh.  Whether or not a man called Jesus actually existed, there is no doubt that a legend began in 1st and 2nd Century Palestine and by the late third Century a new religion emerged, possibly based on myths surrounding a rabbi.

A few years back I became interested in the history of Early Christianity and did some reading on the subject, mostly from online sources.  My research led me to write some essays, unpublished at this time.  I will make a brief synopsis of what I know here.

Christianity evolved out of Judaism, in particular Second Temple Judaism (530 BCE to 70 CE).  The main sects of Judaism during this period were the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots.  All these groups had different beliefs and social statuses, which I will not get into here.

Much of what we know of Early Christian belief has been gleaned from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

What I learned in my research is that Early Christianity was just as diverse with as many sects and beliefs, if not more, as the Christianity of today.

The period after the death of Alexander the Great, the Hellenistic Age (323-32 BCE) saw the influence of Greek philosophy and science in the development of many schools of thought which influenced many of the peoples of the Middle East, including the Jews.

The Apostolic Age of Early Christianity lasted from c. 33 to 100 CE.
The Ante-Nicene Period lasted from 100-325 CE

It is my understanding that the Early Christians had evolved into three separate groups WITHIN Judaism.  As other sects emerged later, some of them were influenced by Gnostic thought and also Pagan views of divinity, primarily Egyptian and Greek.  The first groups. of course, were all Jews: Ebionites, Elkasites, and Nazarenes.  And these three sects had differing views on the divinity of Jesus.

Ebionites: Originating in and around Palestine, this sect practiced voluntary poverty and placed an emphasis of observing the spirit and letter of the Torah.  They did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, maintaining he was just a man.  Therefore, they rejected the belief that Jesus preexisted and was born of a virgin.  It was their belief Jesus became the Messiah by obeying the Law (Torah) and called Israel to repentance through his death.  They also opposed animal sacrifice.  After the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the Ebionites migrated to the Transjordan.  By the time of 140 CE the Ebionites had largely disappeared.

Elkasites: Originating in the Transjordan and named after their founder Elkhasai, and was active in Lower Mesopotamia in the Sasanian Empire.  This sect believed in the remission of sins and placed an emphasis on baptism and had gnostic beliefs: that a gigantic angel who was the Son of God revealed a book.  This angel had a sister who was the Holy Ghost.  In their teachings, Jesus preexisted, had a natural birth, and was reincarnated.  They also practiced circumcision and held the Law of Moses. The Elkasites were active from 100-400 CE.

Nazarenes: This sect originated in and around Jerusalem.  They were the earliest followers of Jesus and were named Nazarenes because he was said to be from Nazareth.  Like the Ebionites, the Nazarenes upheld Jewish law which included observance of the sabbath, adherence to kosher dietary laws, and   the practice of circumcision.  They believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy.  They also observed the Torah.  As other ethnic groups became involved with and joined these three Judaic sects, the name Nazarene began being used to distinguish the Jews who observed the Torah from the Gentiles who did not.

While these three early sects existed, other sects emerged that were influenced by Gnosticism.  I am just going to name a few here (they number in the hundreds): Kenteians, Mandaeiism, Valesians, Cainites, Ophites, Precilianism, Valentinianism, Marcionism, etc, etc.

While these sects were emerging, there was a variety of sacred texts being written and were circulating among these different groups of Judaic and Gentile Christians (just to name a few): Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Apocalypse of Adam, Shepherd of Hermas, Polycarp to the Philippians, Didache, First Epistle of Clement, etc., etc.

The Apostle Paul (c. 5 BCE-64/65 CE) developed a theology which placed an emphasis on Jesus being the source of salvation and accepting Gentiles as adherents. as well as the rejection of circumcision.  This is known as Pauline Christianity, or Pauline Theology.  Of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul, Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, scholars have determined he actually wrote, while three (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) are seen as written by others.

There also existed a sect that is called Proto-orthodox Christianity: this sect emerged during the late 2nd to early 3rd Centuries CE.  They believed in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and accepted Pauline Theology.  They also promoted the office of bishop.  They moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.  It was the Proto-orthodox who criticized being involved with Jews, i. e. "Judaizers."  Furthermore, the Proto-orthodox were involved in shaping the canon of what eventually became the Christian Old and New Testaments.  This sect was intolerant of other sects of Christianity.  By the end of the 3rd Century CE, when this sect became prominent, it claimed that its views had always been the majority position and that its rivals were, and always had been, 'heretics', who willfully 'chose' to reject the 'true belief.'  When Constitine had consolidated his power and control over the Roman Empire, he converted to Christianity in 312 CE. In 325 CE he held the Council of Nicaea and Proto-orthodox Christianity had become the official religion of the empire, thus the Catholic Church was born.

In 381 CE Theodosius I (r. 379-395) made an edict outlawing all other religions in the empire.

The process of Christianity becoming a separate religion from Judaism was a long one.  Gentiles were gradually and increasingly becoming converts.  Between the destruction of the Temple (70 CE), the Jewish-Roman Wars (66-135 CE) and the growing dominance of the Proto-orthodox sect (ca. 280s) was approximately 220 years.  By the early 300's Christianity was definitely no longer Judaic.

Again, the historical periods of Early Christianity are as follows: Apostolic Age (33-100 CE; 67 years).  Ante-Nicene Period (100-325 CE; 225 years).  There was an overlapping and successor period called the Patristic Era (100-451/787 CE), which during this time, significant theological developments occurred, and key figures emerged.

I better end this here.

My apologies if this became TL2R.  There were a lot more details that I left out.  Otherwise, what I had wrote would have been another book and not an article.