Historicity of Jesus

[abaris]

Was it a practice only the wealthy could afford?

Honestly, I don't know about the traditions the jews followed at the time. My special field is contemporary history. The caskets I've seen are obviously to collect the bones after the bodies decomposed. They're rather small.

But it stands to reason that jews followed pretty much the same burial traditions they follow today. Their religion hasn't changed that much over the centuries. What seems to be important to them is quick decomposition and that blood stays with the body.

[Crossless2.0]

Well, it's possible everything was made up out of thin air though I tend to find many features of early Christian belief more difficult to understand on that view. Why have him hailing from Nazareth at all? Why have him baptized by John? Why have him, the Jewish Messiah, crucified?? I know mythicists have answers for these but...I don't think they're convincing.

I agree with this. Granted, the Gospels are lousy sources due to the, at best, second-hand character of their information, the sheer amount of supernatural woo, and the many instances where they report of alleged events for which even the Gospels say or imply there are no witnesses. However, if Jesus (as opposed to Jesus Christ) is simply a mythical construct, it is hard to understand why his inventors would have him come from Nazareth (along with the comical efforts of Matthew and Luke to explain away that inconvenient 'fact') or why John the Baptist is mentioned at all. And the crucifixion? Again, why? There's too much palpable flop sweat in these narratives, as the authors try desperately to make sense of what must have been a shocking end to an otherwise promising ministry.

[robvalue]

I personally don't put much confidence in any details in the NT, unless they can be properly verified from other credible sources. We can speculate about the NT authors' motives, but I don't think its enough to say "they wouldn't have made this bit up because..."

They may have had any number of reasons for making jesus be from somewhere, or do some obscure thing, that are no longer apparent to us. We know they were trying really hard to fit him to prophecies, these other details could have been related to other esoteric reasons to make his divine nature believable. I don't know. But I'm not comfortable personally on accepting validity just through examination of motives.

[abaris]

My best guess is, they collected campfire tales about different messiah type figures roaming the land. There was an abundance of self declared prophets in Palestine at the time. The priesthood had been appointed by the Roman authorities, was entirely dependent on them and wasn't exactly popular with the ordinary people. So everyone preaching against them could find their audience pretty easily. One or more of these figures might have even been crucified. But rather for something the Romans didn't like than according to the wishes of the string puppet jewish priesthood.

And as it goes, the tales have been embellished with myths that must have been pretty well known to the original writers, since they all apply to Greek and Roman deities.

[CapnAwesome]

The thing is, what does it even mean to say it was "based on" someone? You could start off with any guy called jesus around that time, any one you like, and then just completely invent his whole life from there. And considering nothing was put to paper until well after he was supposedly dead, this seems very much the most likely explanation. So really, "jesus" is anyone you like. I feel mythicisists and mooters aren't that different. Mythicising a whole life story is what has happened, either way.

Just to clear up something regarding history that always irks me is the idea that it's well after he's dead. Not really, not for the time period. The gospels came closer on the heels of Jesus' supposed lifetime than any writing about Genghis Khan, who conquered most of the world. People simply weren't documenting stuff that vigorously back then. There aren't primary sources about lots of well established historical figures and that in and of itself is pretty shitty evidence.

---

The thing is, what does it even mean to say it was "based on" someone? You could start off with any guy called jesus around that time, any one you like, and then just completely invent his whole life from there. And considering nothing was put to paper until well after he was supposedly dead, this seems very much the most likely explanation. So really, "jesus" is anyone you like. I feel mythicisists and mooters aren't that different. Mythicising a whole life story is what has happened, either way.

Well that's what I really want to know. I mean do you think the entire story is made up from start to finish? That would mean far more than just Jesus never existed.

[robvalue]

Yeah I like the idea of him being a legion, a compilation of several different nutcase preacher types of the age. He's probably a mix of a few different guys, plenty of myth, "prophecies" and just loads of Chinese whispers and exaggeration.

So I think most likely he's not based on one single person anyway, if at all. Just my take on it.

[vorlon13]

A composite character, hmmm.

Great literary device if handled skillfully. Like not having too many authors (like 4 or more) munging up the details.

[CapnAwesome]

Yeah I like the idea of him being a legion, a compilation of several different nutcase preacher types of the age. He's probably a mix of a few different guys, plenty of myth, "prophecies" and just loads of Chinese whispers and exaggeration.

So I think most likely he's not based on one single person anyway, if at all. Just my take on it.

I tend to think something similar as well. Obviously if you are an Atheist you have to believe the story is heavily embellished because of all the supernatural stuff in the new testament. If you hold the supernatural elements to be key to Jesus existing, then Jesus didn't exist. If however you just need the base non-supernatural elements of the story, that he lived around that time, collected followers, traveled and preached, claimed to be the Messiah, was killed by the Romans, it's hard to say that that person didn't exist. (or as you say, more than one of that person) That's why sometimes when people say 'Jesus didn't exist' I don't really know what they mean or where they are drawing the line. Whether it's based on one person or maybe more than one person is sort of hard to say. I mean it's all just speculation because we don't know how much gets muddled in the oral tradition before our earliest recordings.

Lets have a scenerio where in a thousand years there is a religion based around me. They say Cap'n Awesome was 100 feet tall, spent too much time on the internet and could sexually please women with just a look. Now would people say that I didn't exist just because I'm not 100 feet tall? That person didn't exist. Doesn't mean that it's not based on someone.

[Stealth]

I agree

Why have the jews not picked one of the many people claiming to be the son of god as their savior yet? Because they are all mentally ill...maybe jesus was too

Because the Jews don't believe that there can be a son of god to save them, looking at the "truths" out there, Jesus would have distrupted 3000 years of ones faith.

EDIT: I shouldn't just say Jesus, you can safely assume, that any potential messiah claiming to be a son of god would have been treated the same as Jesus. What made Jesus so special?

[robvalue]

He was special because he was the only white guy born in that area.