Did the historical Jesus exist? A growing number of scholars don’t think so

Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are “mythologized history.” In other words, they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity.

At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that many Bible stories like the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and women at the tomb borrow and rework mythic themes that were common in the Ancient Near East, much the way that screenwriters base new movies on old familiar tropes or plot elements. In this view, a “historical Jesus” became mythologized.

For over 200 years, a wide ranging array of theologians and historians—most of them Christian—analyzed ancient texts, both those that made it into the Bible and those that didn’t, in attempts to excavate the man behind the myth. Several current or recent bestsellers take this approach, distilling the scholarship for a popular audience. Familiar titles include Zealot by Reza Aslan and How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman.

But other scholars believe that the gospel stories are actually “historicized mythology.” In this view, those ancient mythic templates are themselves the kernel. They got filled in with names, places and other real world details as early sects of Jesus worship attempted to understand and defend the devotional traditions they had received.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/30/did-the-historical-jesus-exist-a-growing-number-of-scholars-dont-think-so/

Yes of course...... all those Christians were hunted down and killed for following somebody who never existed......

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes of course...... all those Christians were hunted down and killed for following somebody who never existed......

People were killed for believing in Mithra, did Mithra exist?

Different argument.

Tommy Monk wrote:Different argument.

Not sure which one you are making, but here apart from the Gospels, there is little corroborating evidence to point to a historical Jesus, hence it maybe prudent to read the article before jumping in with things you have no idea about

Would that make Paul, Jesus? We know Paul did a huge makeover on Jesus. I wonder if he invented the whole thing.

Original Quill wrote:Would that make Paul, Jesus?  We know Paul did a huge makeover on Jesus.  I wonder if he invented the whole thing.

It is possible Quill. but am on the fence leaning to the side that he did likely exist.

Agree on one point. If Paul completely invented Jesus, where did the back story come from. Valentinus?

Original Quill wrote:Agree on one point.  If Paul completely invented Jesus, where did the back story come from.  Valentinus?

Indeed, plus the fact there are so many Gospels all be it not included in the bible but too many in my book to have been all invented based off one person, Paul, where the reality is many of the works corroborate sayings to the letter, which can get jumble through different areas through time, but does not seem to be the case in many of the Gospels, they match in many cases,, but of course places and names are often conflicting between the works.
The fact you could not exactly mass print such works back then would also make it even more difficult to invent and for the word to spread quickly.

So it was a common theme, but not an actual reality?

Then where did the common theme come from, and why?

I am not doubting the possibility/probability of 'poetic license' in The produced finished bible but the story of Jesus was much bigger and more widely known at the time than this finished written product.

Original Quill wrote:So it was a common theme, but not an actual reality?

Then where did the common theme come from, and why?

Jesus could have been an amalgamation created from dozens of Jewish street preachers who lived at the time, who sprang up at a time when the Jewish people were oppressed by the Romans and naturally seeking a savior:

Even in Acts, we get an idea of just how gullible people could be. Surviving a snake bite was evidently enough for the inhabitants of Malta to believe that Paul himself was a god (28:6). And Paul and his comrade Barnabas had to go to some lengths to convince the Lycaonians of Lystra that they were not deities. For the locals immediately sought to sacrifice to them as manifestations of Hermes and Zeus, simply because a man with bad feet stood up (14:8-18). These stories show how ready people were to believe that gods can take on human form and walk among them, and that a simple show was sufficient to convince them that mere men were such divine beings. And this evidence is in the bible itself.

Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" (Jewish War, 2.259-60; Jewish Antiquities, 20.167), entrancing the masses and leading them like sheep, usually to their doom. The most successful of these "tricksters" appears to be "the Egyptian" who led a flock of 30,000 believers around Palestine (Jewish War, 2.261-2; Paul is mistaken for him by a Roman officer in Acts 21:38). This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word (Jewish Antiquities, 20.170), yet it took a massacre at the hands of Roman troops to finally instill doubt in his followers.

Twenty years later, a common weaver named Jonathan would attract a mob of the poor and needy, promising to show them many signs and portents (Jewish War, 7.437-8 ). Again, it took military intervention to disband the movement. Josephus also names a certain Theudas, another "trickster" who gathered an impressive following in Cyrene around 46 A.D., claiming he was a prophet and could part the river Jordan (Jewish Antiquities, 20.97). This could be the same Theudas mentioned in Acts 5:36. Stories like these also remind us of the faithful following that Simon was reported to have had in Acts 8:9-11, again showing how easy it was to make people believe you had "the power of god" at your disposal. Jesus was not unique in that respect.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html

Well its a certainty that jesus wasnt born in bethlehem for a start

at the time (year 4 CE...I know. some bishop couldnt count) bethlehem didnt exist as a city..or even a town, in fact it is likely that it was merely a watering hole...

quote
"The importance of Bethlehem to Christianity came to the forefront in the fourth century. Constantine, the first Roman emperor to declare Christianity as the official religion of the empire, sent his mother, Helena, to the Holy Land to find and document sites important to Christianity. Helena believed she had found the spot where Jesus was born in Bethlehem and asked her son to build the Church of the Nativity. With Helena’s encouragement and Constantine’s money supporting them, pilgrims began making the trek to the Holy Lands. Since then, Bethlehem continues to attract pilgrims to Jesus’ birthplace."

quote
" Archaeological excavations have shown that Bethlehem in Judaea likely did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 B.C., when Jesus is believed to have been born. Studies of the town have turned up a great deal of Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 B.C. as well as material from the sixth century A.D., but nothing from the first century B.C. or the first century A.D. Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority, says, “There is surprisingly no archaeological evidence that ties Bethlehem in Judaea to the period in which Jesus would have been born. "

from >>>>>>> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Bethlehem

Paul basically "conflated" the whole Jesus myth in order to turn the romans to christianity, all the raising of the dead and other such wonders are mainly his invention, or at least were certainly greatly exagerated by him since the romans were suckers for a good miracle

victorisnotamused wrote:Paul basically "conflated" the whole Jesus myth in order to turn the romans to christianity, all the raising of the dead and other such wonders are mainly his invention, or at least were certainly greatly exagerated by him since the romans were suckers for a good miracle

But not all accounts are by Paul, far from it and many other gospels are certainly not wrriten or influenced by Paul, like many of the Gnostic ones. Again many conflict on place names, and names of people at events, but many of the sayings corroborate and for the time as stated when there was no mass printing, it would be difficult for this to be achieved, unless there more than just one or two witnesses. Things people say tend to get remembered where as places and people can become murky. Do not forget the first Christians were Jewish Christians who followed all Jewish customs and saw Jesus as the messiah and there was two churches, the former led by James his brother who is mentioned in Josephus also and those that followed Pauls Church. So yes the edited version of the bible is very Pauline, but you have to take all the works into account Victor.

Again I am on the fence but lean to him existing.

Was it Paul or any of The other disciples who changed the story or was it those who wrote/compiled the bible who did ?
Most of The early Christians were hunted down and killed to suppress the story of Jesus but it became to widely known to cover up.
So was the bible then produced by those who wished to keep power and control ...?
And included much of What the wider public already knew...?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:So it was a common theme, but not an actual reality?

Then where did the common theme come from, and why?

Jesus could have been an amalgamation created from dozens of Jewish street preachers who lived at the time, who sprang up at a time when the Jewish people were oppressed by the Romans and naturally seeking a savior:

Even in Acts, we get an idea of just how gullible people could be. Surviving a snake bite was evidently enough for the inhabitants of Malta to believe that Paul himself was a god (28:6). And Paul and his comrade Barnabas had to go to some lengths to convince the Lycaonians of Lystra that they were not deities. For the locals immediately sought to sacrifice to them as manifestations of Hermes and Zeus, simply because a man with bad feet stood up (14:8-18). These stories show how ready people were to believe that gods can take on human form and walk among them, and that a simple show was sufficient to convince them that mere men were such divine beings. And this evidence is in the bible itself.

Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" (Jewish War, 2.259-60; Jewish Antiquities, 20.167), entrancing the masses and leading them like sheep, usually to their doom. The most successful of these "tricksters" appears to be "the Egyptian" who led a flock of 30,000 believers around Palestine (Jewish War, 2.261-2; Paul is mistaken for him by a Roman officer in Acts 21:38). This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word (Jewish Antiquities, 20.170), yet it took a massacre at the hands of Roman troops to finally instill doubt in his followers.

Twenty years later, a common weaver named Jonathan would attract a mob of the poor and needy, promising to show them many signs and portents (Jewish War, 7.437-8 ). Again, it took military intervention to disband the movement. Josephus also names a certain Theudas, another "trickster" who gathered an impressive following in Cyrene around 46 A.D., claiming he was a prophet and could part the river Jordan (Jewish Antiquities, 20.97). This could be the same Theudas mentioned in Acts 5:36. Stories like these also remind us of the faithful following that Simon was reported to have had in Acts 8:9-11, again showing how easy it was to make people believe you had "the power of god" at your disposal. Jesus was not unique in that respect.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html

This is interesting, in as much as I see parallels with the modern ISIS.

Tommy Monk wrote:Was it Paul or any of The other disciples who changed the story or was it those who wrote/compiled the bible who did ?
Most of The early Christians were hunted down and killed to suppress the story of Jesus but it became to widely known to cover up.
So was the bible then produced by those who wished to keep power and control ...?
And included much of What the wider public already knew...?

The first Christians were in the main not hunted down and killed, the Jewish Christians died out in the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans which would have been 4 decades after the event and Pauline Christians were not really persecuted until the time of Nero in Rome and other Emperors, but plenty of Christian communities thrived throughout the Roman Empire.
The reality is as stated there is works like Josephus who names Jesus twice, the first is clearly edited by later writers to add in claims of rising from the dead and Christ but is in the original earliest copies of his works, the second names James and also states he is the brother of Jesus an thus James is clearly a small figure and insignificant that needs Jesus's name to identify him. .

Tommy Monk wrote:Was it Paul or any of The other disciples who changed the story or was it those who wrote/compiled the bible who did ?
Most of The early Christians were hunted down and killed to suppress the story of Jesus but it became to widely known to cover up.
So was the bible then produced by those who wished to keep power and control ...?
And included much of What the wider public already knew...?

The first Christians were in the main not hunted down and killed, the Jewish Christians died out in the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans which would have been 4 decades after the event and Pauline Christians were not really persecuted until the time of Nero in Rome and other Emperors, but plenty of Christian communities thrived throughout the Roman Empire.
The reality is as stated there is works like Josephus who names Jesus twice, the first is clearly edited by later writers to add in claims of rising from the dead and Christ but is in the original earliest copies of his works, the second names James and also states he is the brother of Jesus an thus James is clearly a small figure and insignificant that needs Jesus's name to identify him. .

This is what Josephus states, with the later additional parts:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.


Without the additional parts:


About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Bye for now

Didge wrote:Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are “mythologized history.”  In other words, they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity.

At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that many Bible stories like the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and women at the tomb borrow and rework mythic themes that were common in the Ancient Near East, much the way that screenwriters base new movies on old familiar tropes or plot elements. In this view, a “historical Jesus” became mythologized.

For over 200 years, a wide ranging array of theologians and historians—most of them Christian—analyzed ancient texts, both those that made it into the Bible and those that didn’t, in attempts to excavate the man behind the myth.  Several current or recent bestsellers take this approach, distilling the scholarship for a popular audience. Familiar titles include Zealot by Reza Aslan and  How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman.

But other scholars believe that the gospel stories are actually “historicized mythology.”  In this view, those ancient mythic templates are themselves the kernel. They got filled in with names, places and other real world details as early sects of Jesus worship attempted to understand and defend the devotional traditions they had received.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/30/did-the-historical-jesus-exist-a-growing-number-of-scholars-dont-think-so/

Do i believe that the jesus of the bible existed? the son of god....no not in the least, however it is likely that a "historical jesus figure" possibly of the nature of the above highlighted character DID exist.
as you pointed out didige, mass production of documents didnt exist and the only way of diseminating any news/gossip/information was word of mouth.
now an oral history, kept by trained "remembrancers" (like bards/harpers and the elders in many societies IS generally reconed to be quite accurate, but news and info spread by word of mouth is notoriously inaccurate, and very prone to elaboration/distortion and so on to the point where the original story is unrecognisable. So the simplest act by such a preacher could well have been inflated into a miracle by the time it got 20 miles, let alone to rome.

line of 100 soldiers in a trench during the war...

at one end the captain says ...send for reinforcements, were going to advance...pass it on

at the other end of the line the radio operater gets the message from the last soldier...

send for three and fourpence we're going to a dance......

the danger of "chinese whispers"

Which is what I said Victor about names and places etc and not arguing that he is the son of God lol, but historical, again I lean towards him being historical character, a man, but again, not 100% convinced. Still some accuracy on the sayings being as there around 80 Gospels

Will catch up tomorrow
Night

Yeshua ben Yosef. That's "Jesus son of Joseph".

His scripture was corrupted to attract as many followers as possible, including followers of Mithra, etc.

Mystery solved. Next.

additionally he may be an amalgamation of several preachers at the time. The Jews were under the Roman Yoke and wanted a Messiah... several individuals stood up to try and claim the title..

there were other messiahs with some success too, Bannus was one that Rome thought/feared may be some sort of Messiah at the time.
the 'Jesus' we have today could well be a combination of several men

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/52114/Bannus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bannus

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:So it was a common theme, but not an actual reality?

Then where did the common theme come from, and why?

Jesus could have been an amalgamation created from dozens of Jewish street preachers who lived at the time, who sprang up at a time when the Jewish people were oppressed by the Romans and naturally seeking a savior:

Even in Acts, we get an idea of just how gullible people could be. Surviving a snake bite was evidently enough for the inhabitants of Malta to believe that Paul himself was a god (28:6). And Paul and his comrade Barnabas had to go to some lengths to convince the Lycaonians of Lystra that they were not deities. For the locals immediately sought to sacrifice to them as manifestations of Hermes and Zeus, simply because a man with bad feet stood up (14:8-18). These stories show how ready people were to believe that gods can take on human form and walk among them, and that a simple show was sufficient to convince them that mere men were such divine beings. And this evidence is in the bible itself.

Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" (Jewish War, 2.259-60; Jewish Antiquities, 20.167), entrancing the masses and leading them like sheep, usually to their doom. The most successful of these "tricksters" appears to be "the Egyptian" who led a flock of 30,000 believers around Palestine (Jewish War, 2.261-2; Paul is mistaken for him by a Roman officer in Acts 21:38). This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word (Jewish Antiquities, 20.170), yet it took a massacre at the hands of Roman troops to finally instill doubt in his followers.

Twenty years later, a common weaver named Jonathan would attract a mob of the poor and needy, promising to show them many signs and portents (Jewish War, 7.437-8 ). Again, it took military intervention to disband the movement. Josephus also names a certain Theudas, another "trickster" who gathered an impressive following in Cyrene around 46 A.D., claiming he was a prophet and could part the river Jordan (Jewish Antiquities, 20.97). This could be the same Theudas mentioned in Acts 5:36. Stories like these also remind us of the faithful following that Simon was reported to have had in Acts 8:9-11, again showing how easy it was to make people believe you had "the power of god" at your disposal. Jesus was not unique in that respect.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html

But why? Something must have happened to cause such a phenomenon.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Yeshua ben Yosef. That's "Jesus son of Joseph".

His scripture was corrupted to attract as many followers as possible, including followers of Mithra, etc.

Mystery solved. Next.

My sentiments exactly.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:So it was a common theme, but not an actual reality?

Then where did the common theme come from, and why?

Jesus could have been an amalgamation created from dozens of Jewish street preachers who lived at the time, who sprang up at a time when the Jewish people were oppressed by the Romans and naturally seeking a savior:

Even in Acts, we get an idea of just how gullible people could be. Surviving a snake bite was evidently enough for the inhabitants of Malta to believe that Paul himself was a god (28:6). And Paul and his comrade Barnabas had to go to some lengths to convince the Lycaonians of Lystra that they were not deities. For the locals immediately sought to sacrifice to them as manifestations of Hermes and Zeus, simply because a man with bad feet stood up (14:8-18). These stories show how ready people were to believe that gods can take on human form and walk among them, and that a simple show was sufficient to convince them that mere men were such divine beings. And this evidence is in the bible itself.

Beyond the bible, the historian Josephus supplies some insights. Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" (Jewish War, 2.259-60; Jewish Antiquities, 20.167), entrancing the masses and leading them like sheep, usually to their doom. The most successful of these "tricksters" appears to be "the Egyptian" who led a flock of 30,000 believers around Palestine (Jewish War, 2.261-2; Paul is mistaken for him by a Roman officer in Acts 21:38). This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word (Jewish Antiquities, 20.170), yet it took a massacre at the hands of Roman troops to finally instill doubt in his followers.

Twenty years later, a common weaver named Jonathan would attract a mob of the poor and needy, promising to show them many signs and portents (Jewish War, 7.437-8 ). Again, it took military intervention to disband the movement. Josephus also names a certain Theudas, another "trickster" who gathered an impressive following in Cyrene around 46 A.D., claiming he was a prophet and could part the river Jordan (Jewish Antiquities, 20.97). This could be the same Theudas mentioned in Acts 5:36. Stories like these also remind us of the faithful following that Simon was reported to have had in Acts 8:9-11, again showing how easy it was to make people believe you had "the power of god" at your disposal. Jesus was not unique in that respect.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html

But why?  Something must have happened to cause such a phenomenon.

People through out that part of the world regularly visited the temples of Apollo for medicinal miracles at the time. it was just the 'normal' thing to believe, you get sick you die unless a god intervenes.

literally hundreds of 'temple hospitals' existed at the time through out the Roman and Greek communities, there is about a dozen different gods they can be dedicated to just in Roman culture.

But why a folk story about one man?

Original Quill wrote:But why a folk story about one man?

I don't think it was. I think it became attributed to one man... in part because of the switch to monotheism.. Keep in mind When Jesus was alive MOST of the known Western world was Polytheist... So they had to convince everyone of the lie that there is only one god by attributing the miracles of the plethora of gods and holy men to JUST the one patron god of lies, greed and deceit.. aka Jehovah, Jesus's dad, Allah.

And also would add Christians LITERALLY killed people who pointed out things like 'hey aren't you stealing that from a Sumerian legend?' even to suggest 'hey maybe Jesus was not the only divine person' could also leads to death, SO maybe the local people wanted to keep their legends but the hero had to be changed Jesus or the Christians would murder them and call their previous hero a demon...

Christians wiped out much of Roman Medical knowledge because it was dedicated to Apollo
the Devil with Goat legs is a Satyrs which Christians hate because they are about the worship of sex and fun and nature.. Christians Came a long and said they were the devil. But All the previous interpretations show them as fun loving, musical and promiscuous creatures.

The satyrs' chief was Silenus, a minor deity associated (like Hermes and Priapus) with fertility. These characters can be found in the only complete remaining satyr play, Cyclops, by Euripides, and the fragments of Sophocles' Ichneutae (Tracking Satyrs). The satyr play was a short, lighthearted tailpiece performed after each trilogy of tragedies in Athenian festivals honoring Dionysus.

So again Son of the god of lies, greed and deceit, steals the stories and legends of others and claims he did them all himself..... and you are surprised. ... the apple doesn't fall from the tree IF Jehovah is Full of Lies(which if the Bible is his word then HE IS) why would his son be any different?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsG3MxUd1jg



This is interesting, clip from the film 'zeitgeist'.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:But why a folk story about one man?

I don't think it was. I think it became attributed to one man...  in part because of the switch to monotheism..  Keep in mind When Jesus was alive MOST of the known Western world was Polytheist... So they had to convince everyone of the lie that there is only one god by attributing the miracles of the plethora of gods and holy men to JUST the one patron god of lies, greed and deceit.. aka Jehovah, Jesus's dad, Allah.

And also would add Christians LITERALLY killed people who pointed out things like 'hey aren't you stealing that from a Sumerian legend?'  even to suggest 'hey maybe Jesus was not the only divine person' could also leads to death, SO maybe the local people wanted to keep their legends but the hero had to be changed Jesus or the Christians would murder them and call their previous hero a demon...

Christians wiped out much of Roman Medical knowledge because it was dedicated to Apollo
the Devil with Goat legs is a Satyrs which Christians hate because they are about the worship of sex and fun and nature.. Christians Came a long and said they were the devil. But All the previous interpretations show them as fun loving, musical and promiscuous creatures.

The satyrs' chief was Silenus, a minor deity associated (like Hermes and Priapus) with fertility. These characters can be found in the only complete remaining satyr play, Cyclops, by Euripides, and the fragments of Sophocles' Ichneutae (Tracking Satyrs). The satyr play was a short, lighthearted tailpiece performed after each trilogy of tragedies in Athenian festivals honoring Dionysus.

So again Son of the god of lies, greed and deceit, steals the stories and legends of others and claims he did them all himself.....  and you are surprised.      ...   the apple doesn't fall from the tree IF Jehovah is Full of Lies(which if the Bible is his word then HE IS) why would his son be any different?

I think it's more likely that Jesus borrowed the messiah thesis as a sales pitch for his cause.  Jesus' point was that he was the descendant of David, and rightful king of the Jews.  It would help if he had a little vivacity, and so he attached himself to the story.

More likely that Jesus was flesh and blood, than that he was something of mythical proportions.  I think he came from humble beginnings, and ended in humble endings.  

Now Paul, there was a salesman.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Yeshua ben Yosef. That's "Jesus son of Joseph".

His scripture was corrupted to attract as many followers as possible, including followers of Mithra, etc.

Mystery solved. Next.

What has that got to do with whether he was a real historical character or not?


Hardly mystery solved

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

I don't think it was. I think it became attributed to one man...  in part because of the switch to monotheism..  Keep in mind When Jesus was alive MOST of the known Western world was Polytheist... So they had to convince everyone of the lie that there is only one god by attributing the miracles of the plethora of gods and holy men to JUST the one patron god of lies, greed and deceit.. aka Jehovah, Jesus's dad, Allah.

And also would add Christians LITERALLY killed people who pointed out things like 'hey aren't you stealing that from a Sumerian legend?'  even to suggest 'hey maybe Jesus was not the only divine person' could also leads to death, SO maybe the local people wanted to keep their legends but the hero had to be changed Jesus or the Christians would murder them and call their previous hero a demon...

Christians wiped out much of Roman Medical knowledge because it was dedicated to Apollo
the Devil with Goat legs is a Satyrs which Christians hate because they are about the worship of sex and fun and nature.. Christians Came a long and said they were the devil. But All the previous interpretations show them as fun loving, musical and promiscuous creatures.



So again Son of the god of lies, greed and deceit, steals the stories and legends of others and claims he did them all himself.....  and you are surprised.      ...   the apple doesn't fall from the tree IF Jehovah is Full of Lies(which if the Bible is his word then HE IS) why would his son be any different?

I think it's more likely that Jesus borrowed the messiah thesis as a sales pitch for his cause.  Jesus' point was that he was the descendant of David, and rightful king of the Jews.  It would help if he had a little vivacity, and so he attached himself to the story.

More likely that Jesus was flesh and blood, than that he was something of mythical proportions.  I think he came from humble beginnings, and ended in humble endings.  

Now Paul, there was a salesman.

It is more likely he came from Royal blood and not the Davidic line either.
The key to this is in the name of his mother Miriam, have a think on this and to his crucifixion due to a claim to being King of the Jews, as he was not crucified for any religious heresy by the Romans.
He certainly was a failed Messiah, in the Jewish sense of what they saw for the time then that the messiah would be a warrior king, if or course he was a real character.

Nobody up for some guesses on which Royal blood?

Of course it is a hypothesis, will look in later, ad think you maybe interested Quill.

All the best mate and no worries on the other thread, we are never going to agree on that.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think it's more likely that Jesus borrowed the messiah thesis as a sales pitch for his cause.  Jesus' point was that he was the descendant of David, and rightful king of the Jews.  It would help if he had a little vivacity, and so he attached himself to the story.

More likely that Jesus was flesh and blood, than that he was something of mythical proportions.  I think he came from humble beginnings, and ended in humble endings.  

Now Paul, there was a salesman.

It is more likely he came from Royal blood  and not the Davidic line either.
The key to this is in the name of his mother Miriam, have a think on this and to his crucifixion due to a claim to being King of the Jews, as he was not crucified for any religious heresy by the Romans.
He certainly was a failed Messiah, in the Jewish sense of what they saw for the time then that the messiah would be a warrior king, if or course he was a real character.

All of which makes me believe he was not even a religious figure.  He was a political figure and only adopted the religious trappings to help his cause.  Unfortunately, that led Paul to take off as he did.

Jesus was a political person.  His theme of humanism--as expressed in the theme of Christian Charity--is at best a political theory.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts, Didge.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Yeshua ben Yosef. That's " Jesus son of Joseph".

His scripture was corrupted to attract as many followers as possible, including followers of Mithra, etc.

Mystery solved. Next.

What has that got to do with whether he was a real historical character or not?


Hardly mystery solved

But you claim Yehua ben Yosef did exist as a historical figure.

Yeshua ben Yosef is the Hebrewlised version of Jesus son of Joseph.

My view is that Jesus was the son of Antipater, the first born son of Herod the Great, with Mary or Miriam being one of Antipater's wives. Now it is claimed Mary was the daughter of Mathias, who became the high priest of the great temple. Joesphus records that of the two wives he had the second has no name but was a high-ranking Hasmonean princess. She was the daughter of Antigonus the Hasmonean, the last Hasmonean king who also served as high priest.

Now the Christian story of her parents may have become confused over the name of her father, but the connection of the high priest fits and would be a fitting choice of wife for Antipater. Now we know that Antipater after initially being exiled was recalled and made heir to the throne, to then be excused of treason and was found guilty by Publius Quinctilius Varus, then Roman governor of Syria and then his execution authorized by Caesar Augustus, due to the fact of Atipaters high rank, of which this occurred 5-4BC. Archelaus was the made heir, but only after Antipaters children had disappeared, no doubt murdered by Herod. According to Josephus, Caesar Augustus had declared that the eldest son of Antipaters would be heir.


Now we know Herod was quite mad by the end of his reign, but if Mary was pregnant and fled to Bethlehem, or clearly a town which Matthew has got wrong for the birth and being as it is not claimed his wivies were executed, this would then make much sense then of the action of Herod of being informed by the wise men stating a Messiah King had been born. Herod would not have bothered ordering the execution of every child based on some would be messiah, there were plenty for the time, what would have caused him to order such an execution was that if not wise men, but her father was arrested through rumour of his daughter with child and forced to reveal the whereabouts of his daughter , this would have caused him concern to kill an heir apparent and could create massive problems for Herod, as seen, by degree from Caesar Augustus, this child would be heir to the throne and thus Herod would have done everything to ensure the child's death, being as his will had made Archelaus heir ad would have denied Archelaus becoming the next King.

This would make sense of the killing off all the children of a town, which here we will call Bethlehem, it also add some historical validity to the story and would make more sense than to kill a would be messiah, being as there were plenty at the time, which there is no way such a child born would affect his will. It also would make sense for Mary to then flee to Eygpt, being as Anitpator had friends like Antiphilius a provincial official there, where Mary could seek sanctuary.

It would also then make much sense to the claim around Jesus being the king of the Jews, being by Roman degreee ad even by then deified, being as Ausgustus was now seen as a god unbreakable law. Jesus would have an ironclad claim, which even though it was Pilate had to execute him as an impostor to this claim.

It pieces together aspect of the story to a more historical sense. He would never be known as Jesus son of Antipator though, because the claim was he was the messiah and would have needed to be seen to be descended from David.

I read this many years ago and found it very interesting, with his grand fathers high priest connection, Jesus would have been very schooled on the scripture also and his ministry formed in corroboration with John the Baptist based around Essene teaching, which Jesus wished to preach out to all and not this unique Jewish sect.

There you go, as you well know many facts get skewed and deliberately to change the story to make the story of the son of God story fit, a historical character who was denied his birth right to be king. The Jews never accepted Herod as their King and would have never accepted Jesus of this line also, this another point, which would make some sense to the story.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


What has that got to do with whether he was a real historical character or not?


Hardly mystery solved

But you claim Yehua ben Yosef did exist as a historical figure.

Yeshua ben Yosef is the Hebrewlised version of Jesus son of Joseph.

No I Stated did the character Jesus exist as a historical character or was it a myth, as seen, my view is his father was Antipater and not his step father Joseph and I am well aware of the translations zack, being as I have used the countless timed against smelly lol, did you get that from me>
I said I am on the fence actually and clearly Josephus mentions him twice, so your point on how others write about him or corrupted works about him as utterly no relevance to whether he existed and that myths were made about him.

Jesus was a common name at that time - another form of Joshua - and messiahs abounded. I reckon if he existed he was a zealot or a member of the Essenes. I have read of the theory that he was the son of Antipater and that seems plausible.

The bible has been so corrupted there is little truth to be found there, especially the New Testament where things have been bent to fit a belief system the church wanted us to adopt. The Old Testament may contain the occasional nod towards some historical facts.

Tommy Monk wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsG3MxUd1jg
This is interesting, clip from the film 'zeitgeist'.

Did anyone have a look at this at all...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsG3MxUd1jg
This is interesting, clip from the film 'zeitgeist'.

Did anyone have a look at this at all...?

Fascinating! I knew of the parallels between Christianity and other religions but this puts it together so well. The astrological explanations blew me away.

a good book is A.N. Wilson's Jesus:A Life

I believe that there was a popular and charismatic healer by the name of Jesus but he was most certainly was not the son of God, or born in Bethlehem or on December 25. I think he was a social justice revolutionary who also was devout and was trying to get people to lead better lives (which is why he focused more on the loving than wrathful side of God) - he wanted freedom from the Romans and was fighting against the Pharisee's who were collaborating with the Romans.

After he was killed his brother took up the cause but it was Paul in my opinion who started it all by having some sort of psychotic breakdown (road to Damascus) dealing with his guilt in being one of the collaborators and then trying to redeem himself by putting Jesus up on a pedestal and exaggerating the life and power of Jesus. Basically a forerunner of Rev. Jim Jones type of person.

with regards to the other disciples - they were propagandist one and all and the imagery they used was to try and amaze the people as well as scare them - we have to think what civilization was in those days.

lets face it - a lot of Christian creeds, tenets, beliefs were created hundreds if not thousands of years after Jesus's death.

"Thousands of years..", Cass ?!?

IT'S still less than 2,000 years since he was supposedly crucified..

The monks started composing the "New Testament" around 400 years after his death..

IT was then to be another 1,000+ years before they started translating it from Latin into the first English editions.

Some of the other commentators on here may be able to read classical Latin, but I can't..

Lone Wolf wrote:

"Thousands of years..", Cass ?!?

IT'S still less than 2,000 years since he was supposedly crucified..

The monks started composing the "New Testament" around 400 years after his death..

IT was then to be another 1,000+ years before they started translating it from Latin into the first English editions.

Some of the other commentators on here may be able to read classical Latin, but I can't..

some of the church's dogma was "creatively interpreted" in the second millenia so yes a thousand years.....sorry editing on kindle is a pain.

but you bring up a good point.....too much translations......Aramaic to Greek to Latin To English, French etc.....of course somethings bound to get mis-read or dropped all together.