On my list of videos to make is one where I ask what is meant by the "historical (mundane, mortal) Jesus"?
It seems like arguing over a "historical Superman". A "Superman" who couldn't really fly, leap tall buildings in a single bound or move faster than a speeding bullet? Then he wouldn't be Superman, would he? The supernatural powers are so much a part of his identity that if you take them away, the story bears so little resemblance as to be about a completely different person.
The same is true with Jesus. Nearly every anecdote in the patchwork yarn we call the "Gospels" are punctuated by (if not centered around) a miracle of some sort. Even the ones that don't mention a miracle are so unbelievable that some superhuman feat is implied. Take the "temple tantrum" at the beginning of John and at the end of Mark (?). The temple is a huge complex. Yet Jesus single handedly marched through the whole temple, turning over all the tables and throwing out the merchants? A mortal man would just be wrestled to the floor after turning the first table over. How about when the people of his home town become an angry mob, carrying him to the cliff side to cast him off. Yet he escapes their grip? How could he escape short of having the ability to turn invisible or teleport away?
What is left once we strip away the miracles and superhuman feats that we can still call "Jesus"?
There's his ministry which Matthew tells us "spread like wildfire" not just in Judea but the surrounding countries as well. People came from all over to be healed by him and hear what he had to say. Wealthy and powerful individuals sought him out. Herod Antipas wondered if Jesus was the second coming of John the Baptist. It might be possible for a cult leader to establish such a following. He might be enough of a con artist to pretend to be healing people. But if this is so, why is there such a dearth of evidence for this earth shattering political and religious movement that had the established Jewish clergy so tied up in knots that they met on Passover Eve to conspire against him?
It seems clear that the success of his ministry is greatly exaggerated by Matthew and the other Gospel authors.
OK, what about his teachings? Well, it's hard to say what those teachings were. Jesus, unlike many other theologians, wrote nothing down. Testimonies about what he taught, aside from the "take and eat" passage in Paul, can only be found in the Gospels (highly dubious sources considering we're discounting the miracle claims as lies and embellishments). Even these are rooted in OT teachings. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" appears in Leviticus. Additionally, the plethora of wildly different Christianities, differing on such fundamental issues like "how many gods are there", is testimony to the fact that if Jesus existed, he didn't make his teachings clear to his followers.
So we discount the miracles, we can surmise from the dearth of contemporary testimony that the ministry didn't grab anyone's attention at the time outside his small group of followers, and we know nothing of what he really taught. What's left?
Some guy named "Yeshua" who lived in 1st century Judea? That was a common name.
Another corner doom-crier? There was one on every corner at that time.
A self-styled end-times preacher? Regarded as the Messiah de jour by his followers? They abounded at the time.
If the above three qualities are enough to constitute "THE HISTORICAL JESUS", there are probably several to choose from.
It seems like arguing over a "historical Superman". A "Superman" who couldn't really fly, leap tall buildings in a single bound or move faster than a speeding bullet? Then he wouldn't be Superman, would he? The supernatural powers are so much a part of his identity that if you take them away, the story bears so little resemblance as to be about a completely different person.
The same is true with Jesus. Nearly every anecdote in the patchwork yarn we call the "Gospels" are punctuated by (if not centered around) a miracle of some sort. Even the ones that don't mention a miracle are so unbelievable that some superhuman feat is implied. Take the "temple tantrum" at the beginning of John and at the end of Mark (?). The temple is a huge complex. Yet Jesus single handedly marched through the whole temple, turning over all the tables and throwing out the merchants? A mortal man would just be wrestled to the floor after turning the first table over. How about when the people of his home town become an angry mob, carrying him to the cliff side to cast him off. Yet he escapes their grip? How could he escape short of having the ability to turn invisible or teleport away?
What is left once we strip away the miracles and superhuman feats that we can still call "Jesus"?
There's his ministry which Matthew tells us "spread like wildfire" not just in Judea but the surrounding countries as well. People came from all over to be healed by him and hear what he had to say. Wealthy and powerful individuals sought him out. Herod Antipas wondered if Jesus was the second coming of John the Baptist. It might be possible for a cult leader to establish such a following. He might be enough of a con artist to pretend to be healing people. But if this is so, why is there such a dearth of evidence for this earth shattering political and religious movement that had the established Jewish clergy so tied up in knots that they met on Passover Eve to conspire against him?
It seems clear that the success of his ministry is greatly exaggerated by Matthew and the other Gospel authors.
OK, what about his teachings? Well, it's hard to say what those teachings were. Jesus, unlike many other theologians, wrote nothing down. Testimonies about what he taught, aside from the "take and eat" passage in Paul, can only be found in the Gospels (highly dubious sources considering we're discounting the miracle claims as lies and embellishments). Even these are rooted in OT teachings. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" appears in Leviticus. Additionally, the plethora of wildly different Christianities, differing on such fundamental issues like "how many gods are there", is testimony to the fact that if Jesus existed, he didn't make his teachings clear to his followers.
So we discount the miracles, we can surmise from the dearth of contemporary testimony that the ministry didn't grab anyone's attention at the time outside his small group of followers, and we know nothing of what he really taught. What's left?
Some guy named "Yeshua" who lived in 1st century Judea? That was a common name.
Another corner doom-crier? There was one on every corner at that time.
A self-styled end-times preacher? Regarded as the Messiah de jour by his followers? They abounded at the time.
If the above three qualities are enough to constitute "THE HISTORICAL JESUS", there are probably several to choose from.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
