Historic Jesus -- For those who believe

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

My personal bias aside, a lot of people believe there was a historic Jesus.

 

In the interests of fairness.......

 

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2018/12/yes-jesus-really-existed-and-he-was-born-on-december-25.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Best+of+Patheos&utm_content=57

 

 

[cuchulain]

Jesus strikes me as a legendary character at best, much like king arthur.  Possibly based in reality with a heavy amount of fiction to build him up.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Jesus strikes me as a legendary character at best, much like king arthur.  Possibly based in reality with a heavy amount of fiction to build him up.

 

 

In my opinion, there is not enough evidence for a historic Jesus, to take the proposition seriously.  That's not the point.  If Someone insists that such evidence exists -- I'm prepared to consider it.  We do want to be fair, don't we?  I don't think the author made a good case for his position -- but we want to be fair.  For me, it's the Atheist way.  There is no good reason to believe -- but if someone comes up with a good reason -- I'm willing to reconsider.

 

After all.  It's not faith.  It's fairness.  

 

[Dan56]

Of course I agree with the historical Jesus, but I disagree with the article in regards to his birth date. He was likely born around Sept 28th, 4 BC... I think the course of Abijah that Zacharias served in the temple occurred in the June 13-19 time frame, and not the period of the end of Sept as the article notes. (The Companion Bible, 1974, Appendix 179, p. 200).

[cuchulain]

It's a piece of evidence in favor of the legend hypothesis that even believers cannot specify a date for his birth without debate.  my opinion, of course...since there is no evidence outside of biased testimony of religious zealots.

[RevBogovac]

Why do you think so chuchutrain? Until a couple of decades ago larg parts of the world did not care nor document birthdates. Do you know the birthdate of Socrat or Cleopatra? I believe there was a philosopher named Jesus about 2.000 years ago. His (direct!) followers described enough about that (in the original scrolls). It's like with Plato, he didn't document his own philosophies either, but thanks to the writings of Socrat we can all enjoy his thinking up to today.

 

It seems Jesus' philosophies have helped build our current day lives a lot (considering equality et cetera). And he was quite adamant about them as he choose the death penalty (and an awful one at that) over taking his words back (and he was given that choice). He has my respect and gratitude (as a philospher and as a child of God, as we all are).

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

43 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

Why do you think so chuchutrain? Until a couple of decades ago larg parts of the world did not care nor document birthdates. Do you know the birthdate of Socrat or Cleopatra? I believe there was a philosopher named Jesus about 2.000 years ago. His (direct!) followers described enough about that (in the original scrolls). It's like with Plato, he didn't document his own philosophies either, but thanks to the writings of Socrat we can all enjoy his thinking up to today.

 

It seems Jesus' philosophies have helped build our current day lives a lot (considering equality et cetera). And he was quite adamant about them as he choose the death penalty (and an awful one at that) over taking his words back (and he was given that choice). He has my respect and gratitude (as a philospher and as a child of God, as we all are).

 

In the case of Socrates and Plato; what mattered was their ideas.  Living people are not trying to forge personal relationships with them.  Doctrines of personal salvation are not involved.  No one is claiming that they were divinity.  Rejecting them does not result in Damnation.  

[cuchulain]

2 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

Why do you think so chuchutrain? Until a couple of decades ago larg parts of the world did not care nor document birthdates. Do you know the birthdate of Socrat or Cleopatra? I believe there was a philosopher named Jesus about 2.000 years ago. His (direct!) followers described enough about that (in the original scrolls). It's like with Plato, he didn't document his own philosophies either, but thanks to the writings of Socrat we can all enjoy his thinking up to today.

 

It seems Jesus' philosophies have helped build our current day lives a lot (considering equality et cetera). And he was quite adamant about them as he choose the death penalty (and an awful one at that) over taking his words back (and he was given that choice). He has my respect and gratitude (as a philospher and as a child of God, as we all are).

I say it's a piece of evidence because they (Christians) take it as so dramatically important when he was born, if he lived at all.  I can respect that you believe there is enough evidence to conclude he was a real person.  I have not decided if he was a real person(legend) or simply a mythological figure that latter religious zealots added in to bring some weight to their arguments.  I certainly don't believe the claim that he was the son of God, since I don't believe God exists.  I am open to proof of such a claim.  To his philosophy being important and helping build our current lives, it is fully possible that it was never his philosophy, but was simply rebranded later on, and that is what we have all come to accept.  Having researched the historicity of Jesus, I have encountered countless times one solid barrier to my believing he was a real person...the continual progression doesn't match up.  The most likely reason for believing he was a real person given by any historian I have encountered as yet always ends with "historians agree"...but they cannot provide the evidence as to WHY they agree.  To me that is fishy.  If scientists came up with a hypothesis they wanted to call a theory, they wouldn't leave it at "scientists agree"...they would publish peer reviewed journals with tests to their theory and evidence to support it, at which point many other scientists would recreate the test and try to disprove the theory, and then they would accept or reject it based on results.  As far as I can tell, historians that agree are simply Christians who want it to be true so claim it is, since they fail to publish any actual reason for believing.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

In the Taoist world, there is considerable disagreement as to whether or not Lao Tzu; the alleged author of the Tao Te Jing, ever existed or not.  There is little to no evidence for a historic Lao Tzu; and the name Lao Tzu translates as "Old Master or "Old Sage".  It doesn't matter to Taoists, because what is important to them, is the ideas of Taoism.  Not the source of those ideas.

 

Would Christians, in a similar way, be satisfied with the ideas of Jesus; without a risen Christ?  Some would.  At least some of the Unitarian Universalists do take that view.  For the majority of Christians, I think this would not be at all acceptable.  For the majority of Christians, their faith requires a grounding in a historic Jesus, who became the risen Christ.  

 

For those who are satisfied with a Human Jesus, there is philosophy and ideas.  The actual source of those ideas, rooted in one historic person, is not a hot issue. 

 

The majority of Christians, require theology and faith.  Without a historic risen Christ, they have nothing.  IMO

 

 

1 Corinthians 15:13

But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

1 Corinthians 15:14

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[RevBogovac]

I think you described my believes correctly, cuchulain. I also think there are a lot of "added features" by religious (and powerhungry) zealots there.

But how would you prove him having been a real person...? 

 

But I am even inclined to go with Jonathan's description of "Unitarian Universalists"... I certainly do not believe Jesus rose from the dead... (that being one of those "added features"....) So definitely, as Jonathan said:

 

On 12/28/2018 at 12:05 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

[...] For those who are satisfied with a Human Jesus, there is philosophy and ideas.  The actual source of those ideas, rooted in one historic person, is not a hot issue.  [...]

 

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

I think you described my believes correctly, cuchulain. I also think there are a lot of "added features" by religious (and powerhungry) zealots there.

But how would you prove him having been a real person...? 

 

But I am even inclined to go with Jonathan's description of "Unitarian Universalists"... I certainly do not believe Jesus rose from the dead... (that being one of those "added features"....) So definitely, as Jonathan said:

 

 

I don't need to prove Jesus was a real person for multiple reasons.  First, the burden is on the claimant.  Since some assert he was real, its their job to convince me.  Second, depending on the specific claim is the level of evidence required.  I can accept with various manuscripts, biblical and otherwise, that a person named Jesus lived.  If they further seek to claim his divinity, the required proof to accept that increases exponentially.  Third, his existence is irrelevant to whether teachings acredited to him are of value.  Even if Joe wrote them in his basement, the understanding is the same as if a natural nondivine Jesus taught them.  Do the teachings make sense?  As with most, some do and some don't.  Are they required for a good life?  In my opinion certainly not.  They overlap with the basic rules of most societies and many belief systems enough so that they are hardly unique, once the artifice of divinity is removed.  And there are plenty of good people who believe other things, or as atheists and dont believe in the divine.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

There is another take on Jesus, which I used to advocate for, in my younger days.

 

This is to compare Jesus to Buddha.

 

In Buddhism, anyone can gain enlightenment.  Anyone can become a Buddha.  The historic Buddha is less than the Path.

 

In the same manner, anyone can gain Christ Consciousness and become a Christ.  The historic Jesus, in the same way, is less than the Path.

 

This is not my current line of thought.  For years, it was.  A relic of my past.  From the time when I regarded myself as a Pantheist.

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I don't need to prove Jesus was a real person for multiple reasons.  First, the burden is on the claimant.  Since some assert he was real, its their job to convince me.  Second, depending on the specific claim is the level of evidence required.  I can accept with various manuscripts, biblical and otherwise, that a person named Jesus lived.  If they further seek to claim his divinity, the required proof to accept that increases exponentially.  Third, his existence is irrelevant to whether teachings acredited to him are of value.  Even if Joe wrote them in his basement, the understanding is the same as if a natural nondivine Jesus taught them.  Do the teachings make sense?  As with most, some do and some don't.  Are they required for a good life?  In my opinion certainly not.  They overlap with the basic rules of most societies and many belief systems enough so that they are hardly unique, once the artifice of divinity is removed.  And there are plenty of good people who believe other things, or as atheists and dont believe in the divine.

 

I suspect that there were multiple real people, whose legends and sayings merged over time.  Add a bit of pious fraud -- some politics -- some fraudulent insertions -- and we will never know the truth.  The facts are lost to us.

 

Edited January 2, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[RevBogovac]

16 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I don't need to prove Jesus was a real person for multiple reasons.  First, the burden is on the claimant.  Since some assert he was real, its their job to convince me.  Second, depending on the specific claim is the level of evidence required.  I can accept with various manuscripts, biblical and otherwise, that a person named Jesus lived.  If they further seek to claim his divinity, the required proof to accept that increases exponentially.  Third, his existence is irrelevant to whether teachings acredited to him are of value.  Even if Joe wrote them in his basement, the understanding is the same as if a natural nondivine Jesus taught them.  Do the teachings make sense?  As with most, some do and some don't.  Are they required for a good life?  In my opinion certainly not.  They overlap with the basic rules of most societies and many belief systems enough so that they are hardly unique, once the artifice of divinity is removed.  And there are plenty of good people who believe other things, or as atheists and dont believe in the divine.

 

I am sorry chuchulain, I wasn't clear in my post (maybe a bit "lost in translation"). I didn't mean it like you should prove Jesus was a real person. It was more e question like: how does one prove Jesus was a real person?

 

Because for the most part, I actually agree with you... 😊

[cuchulain]

On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 5:02 AM, RevBogovac said:

 

I am sorry chuchulain, I wasn't clear in my post (maybe a bit "lost in translation"). I didn't mean it like you should prove Jesus was a real person. It was more e question like: how does one prove Jesus was a real person?

 

Because for the most part, I actually agree with you... 😊

As is probably obvious with my posts, I have a tendency to overexplain and overindulge in rants.  No offense was taken from you, I was simply overexplaining again.  my bad.

[cuchulain]

On ‎1‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 6:25 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I suspect that there were multiple real people, whose legends and sayings merged over time.  Add a bit of pious fraud -- some politics -- some fraudulent insertions -- and we will never know the truth.  The facts are lost to us.

 

Indeed, King Arthur is a prime example I like to use.  Historical evidence exists that there was a real Arthur, but that he was merely a tribal chieftain.  Politics on the parts of kings who wanted to bolster their claims exaggerated the claims enormously until today we think of King Arthur as a near miraculous figure who's wisdom was ages ahead of his actual time.  Edward the first comes to mind.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

Indeed, King Arthur is a prime example I like to use.  Historical evidence exists that there was a real Arthur, but that he was merely a tribal chieftain.  Politics on the parts of kings who wanted to bolster their claims exaggerated the claims enormously until today we think of King Arthur as a near miraculous figure who's wisdom was ages ahead of his actual time.  Edward the first comes to mind.

 

King Arthur is the perfect example.  Jesus has Apostles.  King Arthur had the Knights of the Round Table.  Also the mystic sword, courtesy of The Lady of The Lake.  And the Wife of Saintly virtue and purity.  All larger than life.  The real King Arthur, if there was one -- would never recognize himself in the legends.

 

Likewise, the Legendary Robin Hood --  A historic Robin of Luxley -- might have existed.  The Master Archer; quarter staff master; master tactician; etc. seems unlikely.

 

That is the problem with folklore.  Legend over comes and over whelms history.

 

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

Its what people want to believe.  I take that from a book titled 'wizards first rule'.  Simplified, people are stupid and believe any nonsense because they want to or are afraid(hell) its true.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

Its what people want to believe.  I take that from a book titled 'wizards first rule'.  Simplified, people are stupid and believe any nonsense because they want to or are afraid(hell) its true.

 

 

Just so.  Imagine wanting to believe that the God of the Bible is real.  It's like wishing Freddy Kruger into existence.  But so much worse.

 

     

 

 

[cuchulain]

They want torture while afraid of it...what a basis for belief.