Jesus of History and Myth

[DogmaHunter]

As per Yahweh's Revelation, all went as He directed. Jesus after His Resurrection did not appear to any unbelievers at all.

Only to His followers who believed in Him.​

​

According to the bible, that is not true.
Here's a hint: Damascus.

In any case, cvanwey is not talking about Jesus.

 

[cvanwey]

As per Yahweh's Revelation, all went as He directed. Jesus after His Resurrection did not appear to any unbelievers at all. Only to His followers who believed in Him.

Saul of Tarsus was NOT a follower, nor a believer, and yet Saul claimed revelation from a post mortem Jesus, which converted him. Please get your facts straight. Saul is one of the main reasons Christianity even exists today, (from a former non-believer, whom spread the news after a claimed vision).

Furthermore, what does your response have to do with anything? The Bible states that people rose from the dead for many to see. I wasn't speaking about Jesus. So why did NO ONE write of seeing such an event, if the Bible speaks of many?

 

[Hawkins]

I think there are obvious examples of how legends grow around historical figures. I suspect that this also occurred around a historical Jesus. Verses purporting to show that his life was foretold by the prophets are all post-facto fictions. Even the gospels differ on the chronology of his life and ministry.

All that said, the stories are powerful and penetrate to the core of our consciences, setting an example of love and bringing to us the unique idea that God cares intimately for humanity.

One question people don't ask is, if Jesus is true then what should be done for this truth to convey to the timeline of humanity?

The only way remains for those chosen eyewitnesses to have their testimonies recorded down and for the rest of human kind to accept with faith. That's how things work.

Believability itself sometimes is fallacious and delusional. People tend to reject what have been recorded if the events are lying out of our comprehension, such as miracles and etc. That however actually goes back to the same question. If they are true (for the sake of argument we assume so) then what do you want them to convey as a truth?

 

[cvanwey]

One question people don't ask is, if Jesus is true then what should be done for this truth to convey to the timeline of humanity?

The only way remains for those chosen eyewitnesses to have their testimonies recorded down and for the rest of human kind to accept with faith. That's how things work.

Believability itself sometimes is fallacious and delusional. People tend to reject what have been recorded if the events are lying out of our comprehension, such as miracles and etc. That however actually goes back to the same question. If they are true (for the sake of argument we assume so) then what do you want them to convey as a truth?

Anecdotal eyewitness attestation is a rather poor and one of the lowest reliable methodologies to convey or assert a 'truth'. And yet, the entire basis of Christianity hinges upon this stated method (i.e.) 1 Corinthians 15:14. Quite odd really.

Testable and repeatable evidence would be a more sound and reliable way to determine the truth.

As stated prior, if Jesus appeared, post resurrection, and passed out Bibles with carbon fiber covers, type written, expressing many points of instruction in the fields of medicine and technology (not yet known by humans), now we are getting somewhere. And further still, passed them out globally, so that all nations would have preserved copies. You would then have all nations - (Africa, Asia, the Americas, etc.), all reporting and demonstrating preserved media from such a time period.

It would be very difficult for a scoffer, skeptic, or person in doubt, to hand wave away such a conclusion of many books, written on media not yet invented, and a form of writing not yet invented, expressing many points of technology certainly not yet known about, from many nations of differing origins, for use to investigate.

Yes, the scoffer could still scoff. It would at least demonstrate an advanced intelligence beyond the scope of normal humans, doing normal humans things, which fit with the time period.

But instead, we have a small handful of 'eyewitness' claims, which are not substantiated; and are instead only spoken about by bias authors.

 

[John 1720]

No, only that someone wrote a Jesus narrative based on prophecies.

Hi Sir,
So, I assume you believe there were multiple lying Christians that simply wrote narratives about Jesus dying on the cross in order to fit David and Isaiah's prophecy pointing to their Jewish Messiah? If so, how do you reconcile that his death and resurrection were publicly discussed among His contemporaries within the confines of Judea and Galilee and yet we have no record of anyone denying He was crucified and His body missing? I would also appear to be obvious that the numerous number of converts could not have occurred simply by concocting stories without historical undrpinnings.
In Christ, John 1720

 

[Steve Petersen]

Hi Sir,
So, I assume you believe there were multiple lying Christians that simply wrote narratives about Jesus dying on the cross in order to fit David and Isaiah's prophecy pointing to their Jewish Messiah?

No, they weren't lying. The stories were written decades after the events. They were trying to make his death meaningful.

If so, how do you reconcile that his death and resurrection were publicly discussed among His contemporaries within the confines of Judea and Galilee and yet we have no record of anyone denying He was crucified and His body missing?

Which contemporaries? What sources are you using for this?

I would also appear to be obvious that the numerous number of converts could not have occurred simply by concocting stories without historical undrpinnings. In Christ, John 1720

So conversion is the proof of the historicity of a religion? I mean, most of the Roman empire believed that the emperors were gods or sons of gods. Is their belief true because the emperors were real historical people?

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, they weren't lying. The stories were written decades after the events. They were trying to make his death meaningful.

Borrowing from Hume, I often say that if one cannot demonstrate that such a thing as spirit or supernatural is real, then any explanation, including that all the recorders were lying, is more probable than that the events actually happened.

Nothing about reality suggests that these stories are plausible. As such, I can and do dismiss them.

 

[John 1720]

Hi Sir,
Trying to make sense of what you are trying to say Steve - maybe it's best to back up a bit to the previous responses to put it into better context

I think there are obvious examples of how legends grow around historical figures. I suspect that this also occurred around a historical Jesus. Verses purporting to show that his life was foretold by the prophets are all post-facto fictions.

In response the gentleman below replied:

That would require that the Old Testament was written after the New Testament?

No, only that someone wrote a Jesus narrative based on prophecies. ​

Hi Sir,
Which I took to mean that you believe the apostles and 1st Generation disciples that wrote the New Testament actually wrote fictional narratives to fit OT prophesy. So I replied

So, I assume you believe there were multiple lying Christians that simply wrote narratives about Jesus dying on the cross in order to fit David and Isaiah's prophecy pointing to their Jewish Messiah?

1. If so, how do you reconcile that his death and resurrection were publicly discussed among His contemporaries within the confines of Judea and Galilee and yet we have no record of anyone denying He was crucified and His body missing?
2. It would also appear to be obvious that the numerous number of converts could not have occurred simply by concocting stories without historical underpinnings.

But you replied

No, they weren't lying. The stories were written decades after the events. They were trying to make his death meaningful.

I would take it that concocting a fictional narrative is one and the same thing as saying they lied, so don't understand the ambiguity in your statement.

Which contemporaries? What sources are you using for this?

Two points to bring the dialog back into the correct context sir:

1. I don't know of any serious scholars that deny Christ was crucified and the ancient testimony of Josephus and Tacitus, among others, state that.
2. When I speak of contemporaries I speak of the fact that Christianity began flourishing 40 days after the Passover in which Christ was crucified and was raised in immortal Glory. There is nothing in the record stating He was not crucified in the manner testified in the NT and there is nothing which says they were able to produce a body either. If the contemporaries living when Paul's epistles began circulating in the 40's surely the enemies of Christianity would have denied his claims as well as the claims being made all over Judea, Samaria, and Galilee.

So conversion is the proof of the historicity of a religion? I mean, most of the Roman empire believed that the emperors were gods or sons of gods. Is their belief true because the emperors were real historical people?

I never made that claim sir and it is clearly not in proper context. I'm saying Jesus was brutally crucified and that fact matches up very well with the prophecies related to the Suffering Servant.

It also matches up with John the Baptist who prophesied that Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of this world. Even Jesus enemies said He was crucified on Passover Eve.

Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, “He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whosoever has anything to say in his defense, let him come and declare it.” As nothing was brought forward in his defense, he was hanged on Passover Eve.

In case one is prone to trip over hanged instead of crucified the disciple used both terms as well to signify his crucifixion.
Luke 23:39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.
Acts 5:30 “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.
Acts 10:39 “And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree.
Gal 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”),
Mat 27:22-23Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!” Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”
Mar 15:24-27 And when they crucified Him, they divided His garments, casting lots for them to determine what every man should take. Now it was the third hour, and they crucified Him.
With Him they also crucified two robbers, one on His right and the other on His left.



So their confession (His Disciples) became the same as Jesus' disciples are today; for Jesus said He would abide in us until the end of the age and that His Good News would make it into every ethnic people group on the planet. That prophecy too is nearing its completion and I am happy to say I have true brothers and sister that are indeed coming alongside the Holy Spirit who is making all that happen as we speak. For it is true that Jesus died for us in order to redeem us from our sinful nature and unite us to God through our spiritual rebirth into Him

• John 1:4-5 In Him is life, and the life is the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
• John 1:11-13 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
  who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

This is the prayer of Jesus that is in the moniker I chose John 17:20
We know that the preaching of the Gospel will be considered foolishness to some but for those who believe it is the very power of salvation that restores our fellowship to God our Father through His Son Christ Jesus.
In Christ, John 1720

Jesus' Prophesy below may have seemed a longshot in AD30 when He proclaimed it; or even in the decade of the 60's when Matthew recorded it in His Gospel but no one can argue that it is not being fulfilled until the age of Mercy has been fulfilled:

• Matthew 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

 

[Starcomet]

In the ancient world, creating stories or narratives that were heavily embellished and improvised with things said or done that never happened should not be considered lying. That implies they were trying to deceive which they were not...entirely. An example historians give is the work of ancient Greek historians who account the records of ancient leaders and generals like Alexander the Great. He lived centuries before they were born and the records of him did not go into great detail of every little thing he said or did so when historians wrote about him, they had to embellish what he likely would have said or did in the given context of their account.

 

[cvanwey]

In the ancient world, creating stories or narratives that were heavily embellished and improvised with things said or done that never happened should not be considered lying. That implies they were trying to deceive which they were not...entirely. An example historians give is the work of ancient Greek historians who account the records of ancient leaders and generals like Alexander the Great. He lived centuries before they were born and the records of him did not go into great detail of every little thing he said or did so when historians wrote about him, they had to embellish what he likely would have said or did in the given context of their account.

So are you saying there is a chance that the Bible stories also fall within this paradigm?

 

[Starcomet]

So are you saying there is a chance that the Bible stories also fall within this paradigm?

If that is the case, what would it mean?

 

[cvanwey]

If that is the case, what would it mean?

- That maybe Jesus was a teacher/preacher, whom claimed to be more than He actually was.

or...

- Jesus was a wise teacher, never claiming to be the Messiah, and that the later writers are whom wrote Him in as divine, to make his narrative fit with OT prophecy.

or...

- Jesus never existed, or, maybe there were many differing characters in history around this time. And later writings place all events together to make one giant being of all...

or...

other...

 

[Starcomet]

- That maybe Jesus was a teacher/preacher, whom claimed to be more than He actually was.

or...

- Jesus was a wise teacher, never claiming to be the Messiah, and that the later writers are whom wrote Him in as divine, to make his narrative fit with OT prophecy.

or...

- Jesus never existed, or, maybe there were many differing characters in history around this time. And later writings place all events together to make one giant being of all...

or...

other...

All sound possible!

 

[cvanwey]

All sound possible!

I must ask... Your avatar 'labels' you a 'Christian'.

How did (you) conclude Jesus resurrected from the dead? What actual evidence compelled (you)? Based upon the intellect you portray, I doubt it is just pure wishful thinking...

Thanks

 

[Starcomet]

I must ask... Your avatar 'labels' you a 'Christian'.

How did (you) conclude Jesus resurrected from the dead? What actual evidence compelled (you)? Based upon the intellect you portray, I doubt it is just pure wishful thinking...

Thanks

I never said I did! There are different strands of christianity. I suggest asking my beliefs in private as this is off topic. Or I can direct you to the topic by cloudybyday where I state my beliefs.

 

[cvanwey]

I never said I did! There are different strands of christianity. I suggest asking my beliefs in private as this is off topic. Or I can direct you to the topic by cloudybyday where I state my beliefs.

I get what you are saying...

But at the end of the day, what makes Jesus so 'pinnacle', is the claim that He rose from the dead. If he didn't, then He is no better or worse than any other ancient philosopher, teacher, preacher, etc...

This topic seems to drive at the heart of whether Jesus is of this claim, or, from growing legend/myth/other...?

I understand there exists an infinite number of sects for Christians. I'm just curious, as you have 'Unitarian' on your avatar, do you adopt the notion that Jesus was just some wise man in the past, like the countless others? Or, does there instead actually exist sufficient evidence to support the claims of a resurrection? Because at the end of the day, I'm not so concerned with what (you) believe per say, but instead more-so if there exists sufficient evidence to support the claims that He did rise from the grave? (i.e.) fact vs legend... If there is evidence, please direct me accordingly. If there isn't, then yes, no one should kick up a fuss, or be overly concerned with your personal beliefs Just like no one outside my immediate family cares what my favorite color might be.

Because if He/Jesus didn't 'resurrect', then the actual importance of Christianity is really no more or less so than any other topic anyone wants to bring up. You label yourself a Christian, on some vague level. To go out of your way to do so, seems to mean this particular topic might drive your core beliefs/philosophy of our existence... So I again ask... Is there evidence to substantiate this conclusion? Because if you too entertain the plausibility that Jesus is of myth, on some level, then all I can do is scratch my head?

The topic seems to drive at the heart of whether Jesus is of this claim, or, from growing legend/myth/other...?

 

[Starcomet]

I get what you are saying...

But at the end of the day, what makes Jesus so 'pinnacle', is the claim that He rose from the dead. If he didn't, then He is no better or worse than any other ancient philosopher, teacher, preacher, etc...

This topic seems to drive at the heart of whether Jesus is of this claim, or, from growing legend/myth/other...?

I understand there exists an infinite number of sects for Christians. I'm just curious, as you have 'Unitarian' on your avatar, do you adopt the notion that Jesus was just some wise man in the past, like the countless others? Or, does there instead actually exist sufficient evidence to support the claims of a resurrection? Because at the end of the day, I'm not so concerned with what (you) believe per say, but instead more-so if there exists sufficient evidence to support the claims that He did rise from the grave? (i.e.) fact vs legend... If there is evidence, please direct me accordingly. If there isn't, then yes, no one should kick up a fuss, or be overly concerned with your personal beliefs Just like no one outside my immediate family cares what my favorite color might be.

Because if He/Jesus didn't 'resurrect', then the actual importance of Christianity is really no more or less so than any other topic anyone wants to bring up. You label yourself a Christian, on some vague level. To go out of your way to do so, seems to mean this particular topic might drive your core beliefs/philosophy of our existence... So I again ask... Is there evidence to substantiate this conclusion? Because if you too entertain the plausibility that Jesus is of myth, on some level, then all I can do is scratch my head?

The topic seems to drive at the heart of whether Jesus is of this claim, or, from growing legend/myth/other...?

You will sadly search in vain. You will not be able to receive hard evidence of a physical resurrection because I doubt it happened. What the apostles experienced was a spiritual resurrection that caused them all to be convinced that Jesus had risen and was not truly gone. Since it was a spiritual event, there will be no evidence to corroborate it.

 

[cvanwey]

You will sadly search in vain. You will not be able to receive hard evidence of a physical resurrection because I doubt it happened. What the apostles experienced was a spiritual resurrection that caused them all to be convinced that Jesus had risen and was not truly gone. Since it was a spiritual event, there will be no evidence to corroborate it.

Wow! I'm excited to see all the responses which may churn from such a response

 

[Starcomet]

Wow! I'm excited to see all the responses which may churn from such a response

I have been through it all before. It is nothing new to me.

 

[Steve Petersen]

So here is a legend that predates Christ (Virgil.) The elements of this legend is also found in the crucifixion narrative:

Concerning the death of Julius Caesar, Servius, commenting on Vergil (Georg. 1.466.1–5), says that there was a failure/disappearance/weakness of the sun on the day before the Ides of March from the 6th hour until night.

Caesar's son, Octavian (Augustus) was given the title divi filius, or son of god.

The story of the darkness at the crucifixion of Jesus is probably a counter-myth.

Even the events on the day of his crucifixion have all the elements of a Roman triumph, including the destination at the end being 'the place of the skull' (in Rome, the triumph ended at the Capitoline Hill, literally, the Hill of the Skull.)