Historicity of Jesus

[polar bear]

OK most discussions I have read about god and jesus say that god is not real. I have been researching jesus, because with out god, jesus was only a man if he even existed.

For the most part people agree someone, maybe a few people, was named jesus. What can not be clearly proven was his actions, other than his baptism and crucifixion. And of the 3 documents, one being the new testament, Josephus' documents have been scrutinized as being manipulated by christian scholars.

The new testament is the only historical piece that says anything other than these 2 actions. Christians say that the new testament was written by men but breathed by god. If god does not exist then the new testament can not be accepted as evidence.

So we have one document talking about a person referred to as christ from tacitus. I know it is generally accepted that jesus existed, even by fellow atheist's. It does make me question 1. his existence and 2. his actions. It just might be that he made no claim to be the son of god and that everything has been fabricated (as shitty as it is).

As a christian I always accepted the historicity, but when you look deeply at it...it looks suspect at best.

[robvalue]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the stuff about the Virgin birth was inserted after the fact. Well, after-after the fact since the NTs seem to deal only in second hand sources after all the events had already finished. He was meant to be the descendant of David originally to fulfil prophecy, which now he isn't, because he got switched out that blood line.

It's all complete crap, if there was a real guy, you're lucky if he did or said a handful of the things attributed to him in my opinion. I'm not sure it's even a given that he was crucified, if he existed at all.

Apologies if I mucked any details up, this was a hasty post before bed

[Natachan]

My question was always what made this guy special. There were apparently several of this type of preacher in this area at this time. How do we tell one preacher from another. All my books don't help any in singling him out. There is no contemporary source which mentions him or differentiators him from other cult leaders. As I said, there were a lot of them.

TBH we can't even be sure of his crucifixion or baptism. The first seems plausible, Pilate was a despot and had a bunch of people killed. And the baptism wasn't a terribly uncommon thing. But there's no way to be certain of this. Some people who were preachers were crucified, some bent knee and backed down.

[Elskidor]

I predict this thread will become Brucer's temporary new home. As for the subject, well, I could care less. I doubt he was real at all, but if he was then I still don't care. It doesn't concern me. Never has and never will.

Oh, I'm talking about his existence as some random dude, not as the magical fig tree hating water walker.

[polar bear]

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

[robvalue]

Well yes, if he was real, he was some preacher who may have been crucified. You can't possibly establish any more than that, certainly not any of the supernatural nonsense.

---

Christians seem to think that giving a reasonable argument for why someone could have existed that the story was based on, means all the crazy shit is also true. Sorry, doesn't work like that.

[abaris]

For the most part people agree someone, maybe a few people, was named jesus.

Well, the name Jeshua was pretty common among jews. Like, let's say, Brian.

[The Valkyrie]

For the most part people agree someone, maybe a few people, was named jesus.

Well, the name Jeshua was pretty common among jews. Like, let's say, Brian.

We have proof of Brian - there's a movie!

[robvalue]

A movie about Brian?

Yeah right, what would that be called, "The Life of Brian"? :p

[The Valkyrie]

Brian Christ, Superstar.