Reason Jesus must have been a real person

[Whateverist]

There have been several theories proposed that Jesus was not a real person. For example, he is a divine being that lived his life in the space between heaven and earth.  I think Richard Carrier proposed this.

So one question I have, is if Jesus was completely made up, why is his name "Jesus"?
I would think based on prophecy, a 'fake' Jesus would have been named Immanuel.  Not Jesus.
If you are going to make it up, you would make it up so that minor discrepancies such as this would be avoided.

Don't you think, then, that the gospels were at least based on a real person?

Many people have existed who were named Jesus.  I don't deny that.

On the other hand none of them was resurrected from the dead or cured the blind, etc.  That I don't think is true.

[The Valkyrie]

"Jesus" was not a name in first century Palestine. Jesus is an Romanization of the name Yeshua.

I've run into literalist assholes who actually think that Joseph and Mary's last name was "Christ."

Takes all kinds.

And Joan of Arc was Noah's wife...

[Bob Kelso]

Many people have existed who were named Jesus.  I don't deny that.

I think I new a construction worker named Jesus. Nice guy, handy with a hammer. Not so great at forgiving sins though.

[The Valkyrie]

Many people have existed who were named Jesus.  I don't deny that.

I think I new a construction worker named Jesus. Nice guy, handy with a hammer. Not so great at forgiving sins though.

He didn't try to crucify himself, did he?

"Thst's a really negative way to kill yourself, Rick. I've tried it hundreds if times. There's no way you can hammer in the last nail!"
- Neil.

[Bob Kelso]

I think I new a construction worker named Jesus. Nice guy, handy with a hammer. Not so great at forgiving sins though.

He didn't try to crucify himself, did he?

"Thst's a really negative way to kill yourself, Rick. I've tried it hundreds if times. There's no way you can hammer in the last nail!"
- Neil.

No but he did have a habit of missing the nails and hitting his thumb, always screamed his own name when he did. Odd guy, but nice enough.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Jesus is a real person because the bible tells me so.

There!  Checkmate, atheists!

'Curses! Foiled again!'  *twirls his handlebar mustache*

Boru

[RobbyPants]

There have been several theories proposed that Jesus was not a real person. For example, he is a divine being that lived his life in the space between heaven and earth.  I think Richard Carrier proposed this.

So one question I have, is if Jesus was completely made up, why is his name "Jesus"?
I would think based on prophecy, a 'fake' Jesus would have been named Immanuel.  Not Jesus.
If you are going to make it up, you would make it up so that minor discrepancies such as this would be avoided.

Don't you think, then, that the gospels were at least based on a real person?

I don't think that the presence of a single mistake from the source material is evidence that the claim is true. Given that people tend to think that mistakes indicate falsehood is a bit of a problem for this premise.

Granted, that doesn't mean you're wrong, but this premise can't lead you to that conclusion. It's more of a "not even wrong" scenario.

[mrj]

I would think based on prophecy, a 'fake' Jesus would have been named Immanuel.  Not Jesus.

The first thing you have to do is lose the notion that there is any coherence to this OT horseshit.  "El" was the big kahuna in the Northern Kingdom so the "prophecy" of Immanu-el reflected the northern tradition.  But the Assyrians took out the northern kingdom at the end of the 8th century and Judah, which had this yhwh character as their big god couldn't very well pay homage to El, could they?

Right - so I'm aware that the Old testament is really about TWO Gods - El and Yaweh - if not more.  And I also read Carrier and various other books about the historicity of Jesus.  Clearly, there's a lot of myth in there.  I think it's very interesting that there's something called the hero myth - a common set of attributes that all mythical heroes have (21 perhaps?), and Jesus has maybe 19 of those qualities.  Only one character in history has more (King Arthur? Not sure).

But I was explaining to someone about the Isaiah prophecy regarding the virgin birth, and how it is mistranslated.  But then I realized that the same prophecy uses "Immanuel" not Jesus.  The point being - if the gospel writer of Matthew was willing to fabricate the virgin birth based on a prophecy, why didn't he ALSO change the name of Jesus to Immanuel?  Maybe because he based it so much on Mark, and Mark was already out there?  Maybe he was only willing to make minor corrections, or add new parts of the story?

---

Carrier proposed Jesus as existing between heaven and earth? WTF?

My understanding is that Carrier's position is that the letters of Paul, the earliest written account of Jesus, never define a physical being.  If you read Paul's letters (the real ones), you can make the claim that Paul was writing about a supernatural figure that lived a life in the 'space' - specifically the area between heaven and earth.  Remember back then, there was earth, and the sky literally was "heaven".  From this and other extrapolations (ie, Gospels are not history, real history doesn't mention jesus at all, etc), Jesus probably wan't real at all.

But my question is then, the history of Jesus as documented in the Bible is TOO inconsistent.  A truly mythical figure would have a more consistent history, simply because there are no facts to get in the way.  if EVERYTHING is made up, why make up inconsistencies?  This makes me think that there was perhaps a real person(s) at one time (Yeshua, whatever) that was the basis for the Jesus figure, and his/their history got twisted and turned over time to give us the story we have today.

---

I like that this guy is up front about being a cafeteria Catholic.

Yeah, that may be generous.  I tend to come across as religious but always argue based on facts and evidence.  I haven't given up on God yet.  I wouldn't say I'm an atheist.  More of a Deist which a cultural Catholic upbringing, I guess.  I'd classify myself as a seeker of truth.  Regardless, I tend to piss everybody off.

---

Don't you think, then, that the gospels were at least based on a real person?

Are you that desperate?

Uh, no.  Why would you say that?

---

"Jesus" was not a name in first century Palestine. Jesus is an Romanization of the name Yeshua.

I think it is quite possible that the Yeshua/Jesus character in the Bible was based on a real person, or persons. Who cares?

The problem is, even if Yeshua was a historical person, that does not offers zero evidence that he was a god-man, who performed magic.

Not only that, whoever the Yeshua/Jesus person was, he would not recognize the portrayal or stories about himself in the Bible. The person in the Bible, even if based on a real person, is completely mythologized.

Well, I do care if Jesus was real or not.  Why would you not? It's history.

As for evidence that he was God, I didn't ask that.  I simply asked if the Gospel stories are probably based on a real historical figure to a degree.   My point being that the Gospels are so inconsistent  and so antithetical to the social norms of the time, they must have some historical basis.  Don't read any further into it than that.

[Fake Messiah]

But I was explaining to someone about the Isaiah prophecy regarding the virgin birth, and how it is mistranslated.  But then I realized that the same prophecy uses "Immanuel" not Jesus.  The point being - if the gospel writer of Matthew was willing to fabricate the virgin birth based on a prophecy, why didn't he ALSO change the name of Jesus to Immanuel?  Maybe because he based it so much on Mark, and Mark was already out there?  Maybe he was only willing to make minor corrections, or add new parts of the story?

Well, first of all, Jewish messiah was not supposed to be from the virgin birth but human. But considering that Jesus failed to fulfill the "prophecies" from OT that describe messiah (like great military leader, who will win battles for Israel; restoring Jerusalem; rebuilding the Temple; bring world peace etc.) it seems that further writers decided to exaggerate more and more on a success story of "Mark" - religion is always a good business and this Jesus thing caught on so there needed to be produced more stories about him and hence the virgin birth and by John Jesus is creator of the universe himself. I mean you would wonder how previous writers managed to skip that part about creating of the universe.

So there you go. There wasn't one point when Christianity was invented but rather it was invented many times, like when Paul was making his Jesus' stories; when Mark was written and then every time new gospel was being written; then during councils in Nicaea; then when Martin Luther created Protestantism; John Smith Mormons; Jehovah's witness; and every day someone creates new Christianity like televangelism because religion is still a good business - just visit Vatican.

Now, why did some Jews accepted Jesus story when Mark was written? During those times it was probably the biggest crisis in Judaism with temple being demolished and Judeo-Roman wars leaving people with their families slaughtered and homes burned down that it was probably comforting to believe that some Super Jew is around the corner to kill all Romans, avenge them and bring them to some better place in heaven.

[Anomalocaris]

There have been several theories proposed that Jesus was not a real person. For example, he is a divine being that lived his life in the space between heaven and earth.  I think Richard Carrier proposed this.

So one question I have, is if Jesus was completely made up, why is his name "Jesus"?
I would think based on prophecy, a 'fake' Jesus would have been named Immanuel.  Not Jesus.
If you are going to make it up, you would make it up so that minor discrepancies such as this would be avoided.

Don't you think, then, that the gospels were at least based on a real person?

I think the reason why jesus had to have been real is if he was totally made up, then story would not have needed to stretch so hard to disguise what appears to have been a fairly disgraceful sample of Darwin Award winning evolutionary dead end.