The Historical Jesus

[HappySkeptic]

I think that it is likely that a preacher called Jesus existed. The person in the New Testament isn't him.

It is like when you watch a movie that says "inspired by a true story". That means "there a story ... and this movie isn't it".

I recently watched the documentary "Creating Christ" on Amazon Prime. I thought it was going to be crap, but it was actually very good. It contained some things I already knew, but I learned some things as well.

They speculate that Jesus could indeed have been the brother of James, and James was the leader of a messianic Jewish sect (definitely not "Christian") that believed that if the Jews were righteous enough, God would send angels to destroy Israel's enemies (the Romans).

Paul turned the anti-Roman ideas of this sect on its head, and made Christianity pro-Roman and made salvation an other-worldly thing.

[h311inac311]

For me, Jesus was and is as real as the air you breathe, it's that simple.

Existence is defined as living or having objective reality, can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support your (as yet) unevidenced subjective belief? Otherwise it's far from that simple, since people make this identical claim for innumerable deities they imagine are real.  

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity exists outside of the human imagination, or that any deity is even possible? If not then I must remain disbelieving, just as I would for any other claim, and I see no reason to treat god claims to a different standard than any other claim. 

That claim also looks like a textbook circular fallacy to me. I'd link an explanation, but haven't been here long enough to post links yet. Of course you could look it up yourself.

If something happened more than 2,000 years ago, how would you know?

[h311inac311]

even though this census would obviously be very demanding of people who travel by foot and donkey it is still not at all outside the realm of possibility,

It is very much outside the realm of possibility that everyone in the empire is returning to the home of their ancestors from a thousand years earlier. Joseph had to return to the town of Bethlehem because he’s from the lineage of David, but King David "lived" a thousand years earlier.

How is that possible? How would people know where to go? If you had to go register to vote in the town your ancestors came from a thousand years ago, where would you go? And are we to imagine that this massive migration of millions of people, all over the empire, took place without any other author from the period so much as mentioning it? We know a lot about the reign of Caesar Augustus from the writings of historians, philosophers, essayists, poets, and others living about that time. In none of these writings, including an account written by Caesar Augustus himself about his own reign, is there a solitary word about any empire-wide census.

But yeah, the entire Roman Empire went uprooting for a weekend in order to register for a census. Give me a fucking break.

Would if most people didn't respond to the census?

Also, you can't make the statement, "without any other author from the period so much as mentioning it." Unless you're a time traveler.

I could give you countless reasons as to why, but I think you're right, I think that in the age where laws were enforced by sword and bow, most people just shrugged their shoulders and said, "they can't arrest us all" and simply chose to keep on doing what they were doing. Maybe they weren't as eager to obey the law as Joseph was.

Also, during this time it was a lot more common to be near where your ancestors from 1,000 years ago lived. Nowadays, we would need a DNA test that would sprawl out across half the Earth.

Political tensions were high after all, and discussions over taxes are common within the gospel cannon.

as it is written, 
"Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

[Fake Messiah]

Would if most people didn't respond to the census?

Also, you can't make the statement, "without any other author from the period so much as mentioning it." Unless you're a time traveler.

I could give you countless reasons as to why, but I think you're right, I think that in the age where laws were enforced by sword and bow, most people just shrugged their shoulders and said, "they can't arrest us all" and simply chose to keep on doing what they were doing. Maybe they weren't as eager to obey the law as Joseph was.

Also, during this time it was a lot more common to be near where your ancestors from 1,000 years ago lived. Nowadays, we would need a DNA test that would sprawl out across half the Earth.

Those are just ad hoc nonsenses showing that it is just impossible for facts to enter your thick flerf skull that the census described in the Bible is too absurd and impossible to have actually happened.

[Sheldon]

Existence is defined as living or having objective reality, can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support your (as yet) unevidenced subjective belief? Otherwise it's far from that simple, since people make this identical claim for innumerable deities they imagine are real.  

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity exists outside of the human imagination, or that any deity is even possible? If not then I must remain disbelieving, just as I would for any other claim, and I see no reason to treat god claims to a different standard than any other claim. 

That claim also looks like a textbook circular fallacy to me. I'd link an explanation, but haven't been here long enough to post links yet. Of course you could look it up yourself.

If something happened more than 2,000 years ago, how would you know?

Ah, so we'll just skip over my objections and comments to your claims, and go straight to your next question. Well since you asked...

I'd need more than the unevidenced anonymous hearsay of the gospel myths, written decades after the events they purport to describe. Especially if the claims are for supernatural magic, that we don't have any objective reason to believe is possible. 

Now would you care to reciprocate and address the points in my post?

[h311inac311]

Hello h3311inac311,

What was the purpose of Jesus according to you or what have you been told his purpose is?

That's a very broad question, the first word that pops into my mind is Truth. For me the fundamental claim of who Jesus is has always come back to this simple statement, "I am the way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me."

What are people searching for if not the correct way to live? What are you guys after if not the Truth? Who doesn't want to viva la vida?

We all want to live the correct life in the correct way, we all want to be right, we want our beliefs to hold True. For who knowingly believes a lie? How many people knowingly deceive themselves so that they may live a lie that is out of accordance with what is good or true? Most people think that their way is true, that what they believe is true. Jesus came to live the perfect life and show us what would be possible if we chose to follow him as he leads us towards our Father God.

"1) Two completely different genealogies for Joseph.
2) Luke places the date of Jesus' birth ten years later than Matthew.
3) Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in a house in Bethlehem when Jesus was born while Luke says they were living in Nazareth and travelling to Bethlehem for a census.
4) Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised.
5) Luke knows nothing of Herod's slaughter of the innocents or of a flight to Egypt. In fact, by Luke's chronology, Herod was already dead when Jesus was born.
So not compatible at all...NB, I refer to the gospels those names were arbitrarily assigned to, over 3 centuries later, since the original texts of all 4 canonical gospels were unauthored, no one can know who wrote them." - Sheldon

1) Yes, different but not contradictory, or can one man not have a vast multitude of great great grand-parents to draw his name from? 
Does this count as a point in favor of the idea that Matthew and Luke weren't copying each other's homework?

2) Please give me some scriptural references here, I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion.

3) So we can compare Matthew 1:18 with Luke 2. Matthew 2 starts with this, "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king" Does this really contradict with what Luke said about Jesus being born in a manger in Bethlehem? Luke gives more details on this, but Matthew gives more details about King Herod. Does this count as a point in favor of the idea that Matthew and Luke weren't just copying off of each other?

Again I'm still not seeing the contradiction here.

4) Yes, Luke makes mention of how Jesus was presented in the Temple to do all that was according to the law. Matthew talks about king Herod and Joseph's flight to Egypt. Again, a contradiction isn't present here. One author was highlighting different events in Jesus early years. A simpler way to put it is this, is it not possible that both stories are true? That Jesus was born in Bethlehem but then was taken to Egypt to escape Herod, and then was taken back to the Temple for his circumcision? And then went to Nazareth?
And if all of this is true, are either Matthew or Luke making an error?

5) What is Luke's chronology?

[Sheldon]

Hello h3311inac311...

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that any deity is possible? 

You seem to be ignoring that question? 

Do you know that the canonical gospel are anonymous, no one knows who wrote them, and the earliest of them dates to decades after the events they purport to describe. Tha names, Matthew Mark Luke and John were assigned arbitrarily over 3 centuries later, in an attempt to lend the gospel myths some gravitas. 

Not one contemporary word was written about the Jesus character, and thus there are no eyewitness accounts to anything outside of the unevidenced claims in the hearsay of the gospel myths. 

1) Yes, different but not contradictory...

The difference in the genealogies is a contradiction, they cannot both be true.

2) Please give me some scriptural references here, I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion.

It's in the bible, I am not researching this for you, if you want to ignore this contradiction that's up to you, but it is a well known fact among biblical scholars. 

3) Again I'm still not seeing the contradiction here.

The two accounts have them living in different places??

4) a contradiction isn't present here.

Yes it clearly is "Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised." Those accounts axiomatically contradict each other. 

5) What is Luke's chronology?

The quote explains specifically how the chronology of events in Luke contradicts the chronological events in Mathew, it can't be made any clearer??

We all want to live the correct life in the correct way, we all want to be right, we want our beliefs to hold True. 

The most efficacious way to determine truth is the amount of objective evidence that support a claim, we have none for the any deity, or that a deity is even possible.

[The Grand Nudger]

What are people searching for if not the correct way to live? What are you guys after if not the Truth? Who doesn't want to viva la vida?

Christ is a horrendous role model.  People who act christ-like today end up committed or worse..by christians..no less.

[h311inac311]

Hello h3311inac311...

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that any deity is possible? 

You seem to be ignoring that question? 

Do you know that the canonical gospel are anonymous, no one knows who wrote them, and the earliest of them dates to decades after the events they purport to describe. Tha names, Matthew Mark Luke and John were assigned arbitrarily over 3 centuries later, in an attempt to lend the gospel myths some gravitas. 

Not one contemporary word was written about the Jesus character, and thus there are no eyewitness accounts to anything outside of the unevidenced claims in the hearsay of the gospel myths. 

1) Yes, different but not contradictory...

The difference in the genealogies is a contradiction, they cannot both be true.

2) Please give me some scriptural references here, I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion.

It's in the bible, I am not researching this for you, if you want to ignore this contradiction that's up to you, but it is a well known fact among biblical scholars. 

3) Again I'm still not seeing the contradiction here.

The two accounts have them living in different places??

4) a contradiction isn't present here.

Yes it clearly is "Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised." Those accounts axiomatically contradict each other. 

5) What is Luke's chronology?

The quote explains specifically how the chronology of events in Luke contradicts the chronological events in Mathew, it can't be made any clearer??

We all want to live the correct life in the correct way, we all want to be right, we want our beliefs to hold True. 

The most efficacious way to determine truth is the amount of objective evidence that support a claim, we have none for the any deity, or that a deity is even possible.

I wasn't planning on making this topic about "is God real" or "how do you know the Hebrew God is real" so that's why I've been ignoring that aspect of the discussion.


If I'm being honest I don't know the process by which we got the names of the Gospel writers, however, I was never really fixated on that point because I'm not sure how knowing the name of the person who wrote something affects the credibility of what they wrote.

Whoever wrote the book of Acts for instance didn't seem at all concerned that you knew their name. To me it seems that the content of the writing matters a lot more than the name of the person who wrote it.

"and the earliest of them dates to decades after the events they purport to describe." - Sheldon
     Okay so there goes all of ancient history. Sorry but someone writing a whole biography about someone's life less than a century after they died was actually pretty rare back then. Books were a lot more expensive and people who knew how to write were much more rare as well. Imagine if I wanted to write a biography about someone like Abraham Lincoln, would that be an impossible task today? Couldn't I talk to people whose great grandparents knew him personally?

One of the earliest biographies about Alexander the Great was written in 40 AD by a Roman historian named Quintus Curtius Rufus. Modern historians still consider this work to be very important in understanding Alexander's life even though it was written more than 300 years after his death.

As for early mentions of Jesus we have the James Ossuary which is dated to around 70 AD and in aramaic reads "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Beyond that we also have Jesus mentioned in the Talmud. 
       "On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried. "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover"
       
1) How many parents do you have?

2) Can you name one of these Biblical scholars?

3) The Matthew account mentions that baby Jesus was taken to Egypt, the Luke account omits this fact. Both stories begin and end in the same place. Both stories can be true at the same time. Jesus could be born in Bethlehem, met with the wise-men, taken to the temple for circumcision, then taken to Egypt and then traveled back to Nazareth and both accounts would be correct. 

4) No, Luke simply doesn't mention that Jesus was taken to Egypt after being circumcised. It is certainly not an axiomatic contradiction as you say. Both accounts can be true at the same time.

[Angrboda]

How is an account of a Yeshu being hanged evidence of a Yeshu being crucified? You're taking anything as evidence. That's not reasonable. If it is evidence, then you have to accept that the accuracy of the records of Jesus aren't sufficient to establish anything specific about his teachings or testimony; especially not his trial and death.