What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[TimOneill]

What are you claiming here? That Jesus was based on historical figure(s?) similar in some unspecified way to the one in the Bible? Okay.

I'm saying that the figure we find in the NT is most likely based on an apocalyptic preacher called Yeshua from Nazareth in Galilee who was baptised by John, crucified in Jerusalem by Pilate and whose followers formed a Jewish sect headed by his brother James. The later stories arose out of traditions from this sect as they reconciled his sudden death with their belief that he was Yahweh's anointed one.

I don't think that is "in some unspecified way". I think that's pretty specific.

[Mudhammam]

But if there was no historical Jesus story to put this spin on, why did they invent a Messiah who dies? That was not in the Messianic tradition? And why crucified? That put him under a curse according to Jewish tradition. And it made the whole idea that he was some kind of exalted uber-man absurd to non-Jews.

So if these things aren't in the story because they happened, where did they come from? Why would someone make up a Messiah like that?

The story of Jesus contains all of the elements of any great tale: The hero begins poor, works his way up and gains popularity and power, some evil force knocks him down and it looks like he will not get back up... until lo and behold that's exactly what happens, tenfold. It's the most overused plot of all time. Even the Old Testament contains numerous versions.

[Pizza]

If there errors , it's because I'm trying to fix dinner, deal with my whining pet cat, and type at the same time.

"What does "be agnostic about them" mean here? Because if it means "don't try to assess anything based on them at all" then we would have to "be agnostic" about most ancient sources. And the whole enterprise of ancient historical study would be totally untenable. Does that strike you as reasonable?"
No, however, historians need to be very careful and critical of their sources. Do you know how much blatantly political and moral propaganda is in many ancient sources? Just look at all nonsense claims people make about Obama today, good or bad! All we can say honestly say half the time is this is what someone at the time claimed. We shouldn't have a strong commitment to them being right. We shouldn't be too surprised if we found evidence against them.

I'm saying that the figure we find in the NT is most likely based on an apocalyptic preacher called Yeshua from Nazareth in Galilee who was baptised by John, crucified in Jerusalem by Pilate and whose followers formed a Jewish sect headed by his brother James. The later stories arose out of traditions from this sect as they reconciled his sudden death with their belief that he was Yahweh's anointed one.

I don't think that is "in some unspecified way". I think that's pretty specific.

For someone who claims he's not making very precise claims, you sure act like it. Most likely compared to what? That the story was made up whole cloth? Not an impressive claim. It's like the claim "Socrates was kind of like what Plato said he was like," it is a weak claim no one denied.

[Minimalist]

You're rather more likely to "get through to me" if you present something coherent.

Oh dear, Tim, you do seem to be the type who thinks "coherent" means treating this gospel shit as "real." You remind me of the type who asserts that "all real scholars think jesus existed" and then denounce any one who doesn't as "not a real scholar." It's a very convenient position for you to take.

Sorry, pal. I'm not playing your game. Until some actual evidence can be presented that any of this shit is factual and not a later story concocted by a bunch of xtians to establish the primacy of their particular bullshit sect I shall regard it as the latter.

We have archaeological evidence that the term Chrestians was in use in Rome by 37 AD.

The Chrestiani inscription naming Jucundus, Antonia Minor and her husband Drusus establishes Chrestianity in Rome during the Augustan period.

The inscription is here if you'd like to see it.

https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/4sxyy5z...3fe2db.png

So, Chrestians in Rome (Antonia Minor died in 37 so that is the terminus ante quem for her to do much of anything. Further, Suetonius wrote of Chrestus being kicked out of Rome in the reign of Claudius and the sole extant manuscript of Tacitus' Annales has the word "chrestianos" being tampered with to make it "christianos." Even Lactantius seems to have had a problem as late as the 4th century with the issue:

"It is only through ignorance that men call themselves Christians instead of Chrestians," says Lactantius (lib. iv., cap. vii.)

.

So, you see, if you pull your head out of those silly books there is actual evidence of Chrestians but at a time which does nothing to salvage your fairy tales. We can even note a lack of evidence, as in, there are no first century xtian catacombs in Rome but we do see them in the 2d century, and no Roman writer seems to know anything about "jesus" until Celsus towards the end of the 2d century. Oh, and for the record, before you start shrieking about "argument from silence" understand that an absence of evidence IS evidence. It may not be conclusive proof of absence but whatever is conclusive. We have no evidence at all for a Martian invasion of the Mississippi Valley in 1724 but that does not mean we should give it any consideration at all as a reasonable possibility.

The church had every reason to create its own history to go along with its own god. In this it is no different from any other religion concocted by human imagination. I still want facts....not pious blather. So far, you are short on facts and long on blather.

[Pizza]

Absence of evidence arguments only work if our knowledge on an issue is complete.

[Minimalist]

How do you know when your knowledge is "complete"?

[Mudhammam]

How do you know when your knowledge is "complete"?

You don't. That's why absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.

---

Its import into discussions about Jesus, however, lies in demonstrating our profound ignorance concerning claims found in overt religious propaganda.

[Pizza]

In other words, we need evidence for the assumption there would be evidence if the claim in question was true.

---

For someone who claims he's not making very precise claims, you sure act like it. Most likely compared to what? That the story was made up whole cloth? Not an impressive claim. It's like the claim "Socrates was kind of like what Plato said he was like," it is a weak claim no one denied.

Could have worded this better.
I'm not saying "Yeshua existed" is very close to 0. I'm saying comparing that to another claim(mythicists claim) that is according to you very low isn't saying much.

I take a much weaker view that we don't know much of anything about this Yeshua person to say anything interesting. At this point it's hard to separate the man from the myths(and I'm not just talking about the supernatural stuff). The historical Jesus is like the historical Laozi.

[robvalue]

I'm coming round to the idea that jesus could be "histrocal" in some loose sense, but his life story is mythical.

It may have originally been based on some asswipe, but it's got so twisted by the time it hits paper that it no longer resembles the guy it was based on. Now it coincides with him, maybe, in so few ways as to apply quite possible to many "jesuses" of that age. And what we have is a life story that's a mixture of previous myth and brand new myth, trying to match jesus up with the Old Testament.

So it's a win for all, sort of. (If my analysis is worth anything.) There could well be a HJ, but he's no longer identifiable. And we have a life story which is almost entirely mythical. He's myth, moot and "historical". A triple double, in basketball terms, if I said them all ten times for some reason.

[GrandizerII]

In other words, we need evidence for the assumption there would be evidence if the claim in question was true.

---

For someone who claims he's not making very precise claims, you sure act like it. Most likely compared to what? That the story was made up whole cloth? Not an impressive claim. It's like the claim "Socrates was kind of like what Plato said he was like," it is a weak claim no one denied.

Could have worded this better.
I'm not saying "Yeshua existed" is very close to 0. I'm saying comparing that to another claim(mythicists claim) that is according to you very low isn't saying much.

I take a much weaker view that we don't know much of anything about this Yeshua person to say anything interesting. At this point it's hard to separate the man from the myths(and I'm not just talking about the supernatural stuff). The historical Jesus is like the historical Laozi.

Maybe I'm not getting your points properly, but I think you guys are misunderstanding how an HJ scholar may come to the conclusion that Jesus once existed. It isn't merely because he was mentioned in some book. It's more about reading between the lines to see hints pointing toward a person who more likely existed than not because they don't seem to make sense otherwise.