Jesus (1 Viewer)

[Cliff Clavin]

There were no motivations to "fabricate" things. These guys weren't in it for material gain.

Most likely Jesus shared events with his apostles. After all, they walked everywhere they went. I'm sure they discussed almost everything that happened.

That being said, if the bible is inspired, this stuff shouldn't bother you. If its not, this thread is a waste of all of our time.

Perhaps they didn't benefit materially but you can't deny there's a benefit from being accepted as a dude that hung around with God.

They lived in a Jewish world, and we're viciously persecuted. Many of the original apostles were killed. I fail to see the benefits.

What benefits did Jim Jones' apostles get?

Was Jim Jones not a real person? I don't follow.

Just pointing out that the "fact" that they were viciously persecuted means nothing.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Where could the starting point of Christianity have originated from if not from a singular person?

It could have come partially from a combination of real events from the lives of various real people, and partially from fictional sources.For example, the story of a preacher in Galilee whose followers thought he was the Messiah and who got crucified by the Romans could have been based on Yehuda of Galilee. And the story of a Nazarene named Jesus whom the Jewish leadership got mad at and executed could have come from Yeshua ben Pandera. Maybe the bit about the resurrection came from Osiris. Etc.

Even if the stories were a compilation of different events, someone had to affix it to a person and give that person a name.

That seems like the easy part. Combining aspects of several different stories to form a composite seems natural in the context of oral storytelling tradition.

But wouldn't it make more sense to attach it to a person who actually existed to give it some kind of authenticity?

The two people I just named (ETA: and have now bolded) seem to have actually existed. (Maybe I'm not sure what you're asking.)

 

[jamny]

Where could the starting point of Christianity have originated from if not from a singular person?

It could have come partially from a combination of real events from the lives of various real people, and partially from fictional sources.For example, the story of a preacher in Galilee whose followers thought he was the Messiah and who got crucified by the Romans could have been based on Yehuda of Galilee. And the story of a Nazarene named Jesus whom the Jewish leadership got mad at and executed could have come from Yeshua ben Pandera. Maybe the bit about the resurrection came from Osiris. Etc.

Even if the stories were a compilation of different events, someone had to affix it to a person and give that person a name.

That seems like the easy part. Combining aspects of several different stories to form a composite seems natural in the context of oral storytelling tradition.

But wouldn't it make more sense to attach it to a person who actually existed to give it some kind of authenticity?

The two people I just named (ETA: and have now bolded) seem to have actually existed. (Maybe I'm not sure what you're asking.)

What I was saying is if you're going to take multiple stories from different people and attach them to one person, wouldn't it make more sense to do it to a person who actually existed to give a little more credence to them? If I was profoundly moved by hearing Jesus speak at the time and heard later on that he was crucified, it would have much more impact than if I had never heard him speak.

 

[shader]

There were no motivations to "fabricate" things. These guys weren't in it for material gain.

Most likely Jesus shared events with his apostles. After all, they walked everywhere they went. I'm sure they discussed almost everything that happened.

That being said, if the bible is inspired, this stuff shouldn't bother you. If its not, this thread is a waste of all of our time.

Perhaps they didn't benefit materially but you can't deny there's a benefit from being accepted as a dude that hung around with God.

They lived in a Jewish world, and we're viciously persecuted. Many of the original apostles were killed. I fail to see the benefits.

What benefits did Jim Jones' apostles get?

Was Jim Jones not a real person? I don't follow.

Just pointing out that the "fact" that they were viciously persecuted means nothing.

It means a lot in the framework of the discussion I was having. Just being persecuted doesn't make them right, I agree. But the implication of a few posters was that they had a lot to gain by being apostles, possibly enough to fabricate entire stories, events and maybe even Jesus himself. My position is that it really wasn't a great life they all led, from the point of view of the average person at that time.As an aside, Jim Jones' followers were brainwashed and died in a mass suicide with him present. Jesus followers continued living under persecution for years after his death. Kind of silly to try and link the two, as they are both fundamentally different situations.

 

[mr roboto]

Where could the starting point of Christianity have originated from if not from a singular person?

It could have come partially from a combination of real events from the lives of various real people, and partially from fictional sources.For example, the story of a preacher in Galilee whose followers thought he was the Messiah and who got crucified by the Romans could have been based on Yehuda of Galilee. And the story of a Nazarene named Jesus whom the Jewish leadership got mad at and executed could have come from Yeshua ben Pandera. Maybe the bit about the resurrection came from Osiris. Etc.

Even if the stories were a compilation of different events, someone had to affix it to a person and give that person a name.

That seems like the easy part. Combining aspects of several different stories to form a composite seems natural in the context of oral storytelling tradition.

But wouldn't it make more sense to attach it to a person who actually existed to give it some kind of authenticity?

The two people I just named (ETA: and have now bolded) seem to have actually existed. (Maybe I'm not sure what you're asking.)

What I was saying is if you're going to take multiple stories from different people and attach them to one person, wouldn't it make more sense to do it to a person who actually existed to give a little more credence to them? If I was profoundly moved by hearing Jesus speak at the time and heard later on that he was crucified, it would have much more impact than if I had never heard him speak.

Yes. He most likely existed. I don't get why the biblical writers get immediately thrown out as evidence. I know many people have a hard time with the supernatural claims, but as MT and others have said, Jesus wasn't the first proported miracle worker in that place around that time. The Way could not have spread with stories like the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem if the man literally never existed. Too many people could have discounted it.

 

[shader]

I guess the question is how many people named Jesus lived during that timeframe and-- lived in Nazareth-- had the last name Christ-- and were carpenters?That would narrow things considerably, I think. How many people could have been living in Nazareth during that time frame? According to google, it's under 1000. I would think there would have been only one person to meet the above criteria, if any.

Nazareth may not have existed during the time that Jesus was supposed to have walked the earth. The idea that he was from there came from Greeks, who couldn't tell the difference between the Aramaic words for Nazareth and Nazarene."Christ," of course, is not a surname, but a title. It means "Messiah."

Some scholars agree with your first paragraph, but many do not. To act as if it is the blanket truth is a little bit misleading.

Note the "may" in my first sentence. (My second sentence was meant to be read in the same spirit. My bad if it sounded definitive rather than cautious.)

Also, I doubt the bible writers would create a village out of thin air. If they were writing a book that would sound plausible, using real places would seem important. It's quite ridiculous to think Nazareth didn't exist when the bible was written.

1. "The time that Jesus was supposed to have walked the earth" ≠ "when the Bible was written."2. Who said they created it out of thin air? If they thought "Jesus the Nazarene" said "Jesus of Nazareth," they would have thought Nazareth was a real place (even if it weren't).

1. Yes, you said "may". But the implication is negative. If I say "Jimmy MAY be a wife abuser", what does that do? It creates doubt when there is no reasonable reason for doubt. The bible isn't in the habit of creating physical places that didn't exist. Sure, every place listed in the bible hasn't been verified archaeologically yet, but "arguments from silence" have bitten the bible skeptics a number of times in the past. Unless one is VERY jaded against the bible, it generally has to be accepted as having a lot of great historical information. So why would anyone try to assume that Nazareth didn't exist? What's the point. It only opens one up to a bunch of ridicule if an inscription is one day found. 2. No, the bible wasn't written at the exact time when Jesus walked the earth. But it was written close enough to have been verifiable info, in my opinion.3. I'm honestly not well versed enough in the Nazarene/Nazareth language debate. A cursory look shows it's a pretty complex one. I'll have to do research. Again, I'd hate to be one that argued against Nazareth existing, because at any point some evidence can be found that proves the existence of the tiny village in the first century.

 

[shader]

Where could the starting point of Christianity have originated from if not from a singular person?

It could have come partially from a combination of real events from the lives of various real people, and partially from fictional sources.For example, the story of a preacher in Galilee whose followers thought he was the Messiah and who got crucified by the Romans could have been based on Yehuda of Galilee. And the story of a Nazarene named Jesus whom the Jewish leadership got mad at and executed could have come from Yeshua ben Pandera. Maybe the bit about the resurrection came from Osiris. Etc.

Even if the stories were a compilation of different events, someone had to affix it to a person and give that person a name.

That seems like the easy part. Combining aspects of several different stories to form a composite seems natural in the context of oral storytelling tradition.

But wouldn't it make more sense to attach it to a person who actually existed to give it some kind of authenticity?

The two people I just named (ETA: and have now bolded) seem to have actually existed. (Maybe I'm not sure what you're asking.)

What I was saying is if you're going to take multiple stories from different people and attach them to one person, wouldn't it make more sense to do it to a person who actually existed to give a little more credence to them? If I was profoundly moved by hearing Jesus speak at the time and heard later on that he was crucified, it would have much more impact than if I had never heard him speak.

Yes. He most likely existed. I don't get why the biblical writers get immediately thrown out as evidence. I know many people have a hard time with the supernatural claims, but as MT and others have said, Jesus wasn't the first proported miracle worker in that place around that time. The Way could not have spread with stories like the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem if the man literally never existed. Too many people could have discounted it.

Good point. And people often don't realize how fastidious the Jews were about their record keeping. People knew what tribe of Israel they were in, they registered, and it would have been literally impossible to fabricate the story of Jesus in the first century, and try to pass him off as a legal member of the tribe of Judah.

It would be akin to me starting a major religion based on a man that supposedly did great things a few decades ago.

 

[shader]

Where could the starting point of Christianity have originated from if not from a singular person?

It could have come partially from a combination of real events from the lives of various real people, and partially from fictional sources.For example, the story of a preacher in Galilee whose followers thought he was the Messiah and who got crucified by the Romans could have been based on Yehuda of Galilee. And the story of a Nazarene named Jesus whom the Jewish leadership got mad at and executed could have come from Yeshua ben Pandera. Maybe the bit about the resurrection came from Osiris. Etc.

Even if the stories were a compilation of different events, someone had to affix it to a person and give that person a name.

That seems like the easy part. Combining aspects of several different stories to form a composite seems natural in the context of oral storytelling tradition.

Perhaps if it was actually oral story telling, your theory might have merit. The facts are, however, that things were written down on paper.After all, most scholars think Mark was completed around 70. Even if that rather late date is true, that's hardly enough time for oral story telling legends to decay to the point where they are getting resurrection myths from Osirus mixed up with two people that lived a few years back.

 

[shader]

Where could the starting point of Christianity have originated from if not from a singular person? Even if the stories were a compilation of different events, someone had to affix it to a person and give that person a name.

If I'm not mistaken just about nothing of Christianity is original. Most can be found in previous religion/mythology. Especially the traditions.

Well that depends on whether you are discussing the Jesus of the bible, or modern day christianity. The trinity is certainly not from a christian origin, having clear and obvious parallels with all sorts of "pagan" religions. Same with much of the symbology of the church, and any vast number of traditions, celebrations and teachings that the church later adopted.But the bible itself kind of stands alone in ancient literature, from my studies at least.

 

[jomar]

If I was profoundly moved by hearing Jesus speak at the time and heard later on that he was crucified, it would have much more impact than if I had never heard him speak.

This is apparently not the case, judging by all the people who believe based just on what someone else tells them

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The Way could not have spread with stories like the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem if the man literally never existed. Too many people could have discounted it.

In the context of how many people made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem each year versus the population around the areas that Jesus frequented almost no one would have had any clue who the clown on the ### was. Maybe a few who had previously witnessed Jesus' act could have created whispers through the crowd where a few more had heard of his exploits over the past couple of years, but the vast majority of the crowd would really have no reason to know who Jesus was. This would be true even if he somehow tossed the money changer tables three (two?) years earlier as John suggests and survived. Unless the bible trivializes the distance that Jesus' ministry traveled (possible I guess) Jesus' triumphant entry would need to be more high comedy than anything else. If the alternative was true then Jesus would have very likely been hauled off right then and there. The grand entrance was to turn heads and grab attention.And no one would have known anything was being said to discount it. Especially in the gentile communities that become Christianity. The eyewitnesses to this spectacle and their heirs quickly forget and eventually chose the message of the Pharisees.

 

[jomar]

As an aside, Jim Jones' followers were brainwashed

Some would argue.........ah, forget it

 

[shader]

Where could the starting point of Christianity have originated from if not from a singular person?

It could have come partially from a combination of real events from the lives of various real people, and partially from fictional sources.For example, the story of a preacher in Galilee whose followers thought he was the Messiah and who got crucified by the Romans could have been based on Yehuda of Galilee. And the story of a Nazarene named Jesus whom the Jewish leadership got mad at and executed could have come from Yeshua ben Pandera. Maybe the bit about the resurrection came from Osiris. Etc.

This passage explains why it was necessary to include a story of his resurrection:

1 Corinthians 15:14-17 And if Christ has not been raised , our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we [the apostles] are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised , then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

Look, either the writers were frauds, either they were highly deceived, or they were telling the truth. To act as if they would "insert" a resurrection story is to basically call them frauds. I can't imagine Paul writing the above passage, and then realizing "hey I better go back to those gospels we are writing and insert a cool resurrection story so that we'll get more believers".

It's pretty clear from the writings and the evidence, that the christians honestly believed what they wrote. I'm not saying that in itself made it right, just that i don't see how anyone could try and attribute false motives to them.

 

[shader]

As an aside, Jim Jones' followers were brainwashed

Some would argue.........ah, forget it

Any group that believes anything strongly, generally gets accused of brain washing by groups that feel that they are wrong.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...If I was profoundly moved by hearing Jesus speak at the time and heard later on that he was crucified, it would have much more impact than if I had never heard him speak.

Christianity formed almost exclusively out of people that never heard Jesus speak. Either the Jerusalem Jewish Christian faded away into history or they ran off to Pella prior to the fall of the Temple where for all practical purposes they faded away into history. What survives and eventually thrives is the gentile Christians that were not part of Jesus' ministry.

 

[Chadstroma]

The Biblical account shows that Pilot had no idea who He was until brought before Him to decide on His fate.

This may be a stupid question, but how would anyone have come by the knowledge of how Pilate reacted to Jesus? Did someone do some investigative reporting and interview whoever else was in the room? Did Jesus tell someone as he was carrying his cross or as he was on the cross?Serious question.

Luke 1:1-4 addresses this. 1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (NASB)

 

[jomar]

As an aside, Jim Jones' followers were brainwashed

Some would argue.........ah, forget it

Any group that believes anything strongly, generally gets accused of brain washing by groups that feel that they are wrong.

Do you believe Muslims are brainwashed?

 

[shader]

...If I was profoundly moved by hearing Jesus speak at the time and heard later on that he was crucified, it would have much more impact than if I had never heard him speak.

Christianity formed almost exclusively out of people that never heard Jesus speak. Either the Jerusalem Jewish Christian faded away into history or they ran off to Pella prior to the fall of the Temple where for all practical purposes they faded away into history. What survives and eventually thrives is the gentile Christians that were not part of Jesus' ministry.

According to you.According to the book of Christianity, it formed shortly after Jesus death.

Sure, eventually Christianity in bulk was comprised of people who never heard him actually speak, but that's kind of obvious.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's pretty clear from the writings and the evidence, that the christians honestly believed what they wrote. I'm not saying that in itself made it right, just that i don't see how anyone could try and attribute false motives to them.

Whether the believed it is probably self evident, but that doesn't mean that there are not clear and blatant agendas that make its way into the text. Some of this (treatment of Jews, especially the Pharisees, sucking up to Rome, trashing followers that have their own followers) can pretty clearly suggest at least that false motives should be attached to it.

 

[shader]

As an aside, Jim Jones' followers were brainwashed

Some would argue.........ah, forget it

Any group that believes anything strongly, generally gets accused of brain washing by groups that feel that they are wrong.

Do you believe Muslims are brainwashed?

I believe most people tend to follow the beliefs that they grew up in, and especially so in areas where strong family ties make it very difficult to NOT believe. And I do believe this applies to many religions in christianity as well.

 

[shader]

It's pretty clear from the writings and the evidence, that the christians honestly believed what they wrote. I'm not saying that in itself made it right, just that i don't see how anyone could try and attribute false motives to them.

Whether the believed it is probably self evident, but that doesn't mean that there are not clear and blatant agendas that make its way into the text. Some of this (treatment of Jews, especially the Pharisees, sucking up to Rome, trashing followers that have their own followers) can pretty clearly suggest at least that false motives should be attached to it.

You pull the strangest messages out of the bible of anyone I've ever discussed the bible with.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...If I was profoundly moved by hearing Jesus speak at the time and heard later on that he was crucified, it would have much more impact than if I had never heard him speak.

Christianity formed almost exclusively out of people that never heard Jesus speak. Either the Jerusalem Jewish Christian faded away into history or they ran off to Pella prior to the fall of the Temple where for all practical purposes they faded away into history. What survives and eventually thrives is the gentile Christians that were not part of Jesus' ministry.

According to you.According to the book of Christianity, it formed shortly after Jesus death.

Sure, eventually Christianity in bulk was comprised of people who never heard him actually speak, but that's kind of obvious.

Actually according to that book of yours. See Paul's vision and compare and contrast to Peter and James little commune.

 

[cstu]

Where could the starting point of Christianity have originated from if not from a singular person?

It could have come partially from a combination of real events from the lives of various real people, and partially from fictional sources.For example, the story of a preacher in Galilee whose followers thought he was the Messiah and who got crucified by the Romans could have been based on Yehuda of Galilee. And the story of a Nazarene named Jesus whom the Jewish leadership got mad at and executed could have come from Yeshua ben Pandera. Maybe the bit about the resurrection came from Osiris. Etc.

Even if the stories were a compilation of different events, someone had to affix it to a person and give that person a name.

That seems like the easy part. Combining aspects of several different stories to form a composite seems natural in the context of oral storytelling tradition.

Perhaps if it was actually oral story telling, your theory might have merit. The facts are, however, that things were written down on paper.After all, most scholars think Mark was completed around 70. Even if that rather late date is true, that's hardly enough time for oral story telling legends to decay to the point where they are getting resurrection myths from Osirus mixed up with two people that lived a few years back.

Who is going to disagree with the resurrection myth - the same people that didn't even believe he was the messiah? The people that wrote the Bible could make up anything they wanted about Jesus and there was no one reputable to argue about it. I'm sure they based the character on a real guy with a good message, but it really seems like they created the religion they wanted out him.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's pretty clear from the writings and the evidence, that the christians honestly believed what they wrote. I'm not saying that in itself made it right, just that i don't see how anyone could try and attribute false motives to them.

Whether the believed it is probably self evident, but that doesn't mean that there are not clear and blatant agendas that make its way into the text. Some of this (treatment of Jews, especially the Pharisees, sucking up to Rome, trashing followers that have their own followers) can pretty clearly suggest at least that false motives should be attached to it.

You pull the strangest messages out of the bible of anyone I've ever discussed the bible with.

"Love thy Neighbor" is pretty foreign to most of us.

 

[cstu]

Where could the starting point of Christianity have originated from if not from a singular person?

It could have come partially from a combination of real events from the lives of various real people, and partially from fictional sources.For example, the story of a preacher in Galilee whose followers thought he was the Messiah and who got crucified by the Romans could have been based on Yehuda of Galilee. And the story of a Nazarene named Jesus whom the Jewish leadership got mad at and executed could have come from Yeshua ben Pandera. Maybe the bit about the resurrection came from Osiris. Etc.

This passage explains why it was necessary to include a story of his resurrection:

1 Corinthians 15:14-17 And if Christ has not been raised , our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we [the apostles] are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised , then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

Look, either the writers were frauds, either they were highly deceived, or they were telling the truth. To act as if they would "insert" a resurrection story is to basically call them frauds. I can't imagine Paul writing the above passage, and then realizing "hey I better go back to those gospels we are writing and insert a cool resurrection story so that we'll get more believers".

It's pretty clear from the writings and the evidence, that the christians honestly believed what they wrote. I'm not saying that in itself made it right, just that i don't see how anyone could try and attribute false motives to them.

Question - how did Paul know the exact order in which Jesus showed himself? Was this really part of the conversation when he met a reincarnated Jesus? It's all too convenient to convince people that Jesus was in fact God.

“For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time” (1 Cor 15:3-8, NKJV).

As for fraud, it's well accepted among Biblical scholars that several books of the Bible are indeed frauds (not written by who they claim to be written by).

 

[cstu]

What Jesus told the disciples when he was alive:

And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. (KJV Bible, Matthew 10:1-7)

What Jesus told the disciples after he died:

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.(KJV Bible, Matthew 28:16-20)

 

[mr roboto]

What Jesus told the disciples when he was alive:

And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. (KJV Bible, Matthew 10:1-7)

What Jesus told the disciples after he died:

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.(KJV Bible, Matthew 28:16-20)

Yes. #1 was instructions for their ministry while he was still alive. #2 was his instructions after he died and rose again. His message went first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles.

 

[Guest]

Very educational thread. Thanks.

 

[jamny]

If I was profoundly moved by hearing Jesus speak at the time and heard later on that he was crucified, it would have much more impact than if I had never heard him speak.

This is apparently not the case, judging by all the people who believe based just on what someone else tells them

Belief in an established religion, sure. I'm talking about starting one from scratch. It seems as if there were any number of wannabe messiahs and prophets vying for peoples attention. It seems less likely that an imaginary one would make more impact over someone who actually existed and preached before them. You could attach a story better to someone that you know.

 

[jomar]

If I was profoundly moved by hearing Jesus speak at the time and heard later on that he was crucified, it would have much more impact than if I had never heard him speak.

This is apparently not the case, judging by all the people who believe based just on what someone else tells them

Belief in an established religion, sure. I'm talking about starting one from scratch. It seems as if there were any number of wannabe messiahs and prophets vying for peoples attention. It seems less likely that an imaginary one would make more impact over someone who actually existed and preached before them. You could attach a story better to someone that you know.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. If I know the person or had seen them speak, I might realize that 'no way is that person God'. good speaker, good message, but thats all. but for some people, if they'd never come across the person, it would actually increase the chances they believed. they lose the ability to judge for themselves and are left to the stories they are told, which they can't prove false and if enough people tell them they are true, they can start to believe them. I guess what I'm saying is that when it comes to ridiculous stories, the farther you are away from it, its possible that there's a better the chance you'll believe it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If I was profoundly moved by hearing Jesus speak at the time and heard later on that he was crucified, it would have much more impact than if I had never heard him speak.

This is apparently not the case, judging by all the people who believe based just on what someone else tells them

Belief in an established religion, sure. I'm talking about starting one from scratch. It seems as if there were any number of wannabe messiahs and prophets vying for peoples attention. It seems less likely that an imaginary one would make more impact over someone who actually existed and preached before them. You could attach a story better to someone that you know.

This is why I believe that the presence of Jesus Movements is the best evidence for a historical Jesus. I don't think the content of Paul's letters is much evidence as much as the fact he could write to an audience. Same for the gospels. Content wise is suspect, being written for believer communities is evidence to me. But then again the same is true for all of the heretical writings that we are suppose to dismiss as frauds.

 

[FavreCo]

Who is going to disagree with the resurrection myth - the same people that didn't even believe he was the messiah? The people that wrote the Bible could make up anything they wanted about Jesus and there was no one reputable to argue about it. I'm sure they based the character on a real guy with a good message, but it really seems like they created the religion they wanted out him.

Much more believable than what the jesus crowd thinks.

 

[jamny]

If I was profoundly moved by hearing Jesus speak at the time and heard later on that he was crucified, it would have much more impact than if I had never heard him speak.

This is apparently not the case, judging by all the people who believe based just on what someone else tells them

Belief in an established religion, sure. I'm talking about starting one from scratch. It seems as if there were any number of wannabe messiahs and prophets vying for peoples attention. It seems less likely that an imaginary one would make more impact over someone who actually existed and preached before them. You could attach a story better to someone that you know.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. If I know the person or had seen them speak, I might realize that 'no way is that person God'. good speaker, good message, but thats all. but for some people, if they'd never come across the person, it would actually increase the chances they believed. they lose the ability to judge for themselves and are left to the stories they are told, which they can't prove false and if enough people tell them they are true, they can start to believe them. I guess what I'm saying is that when it comes to ridiculous stories, the farther you are away from it, its possible that there's a better the chance you'll believe it.

Yeah, but I'm talking about the very, very first believers. Would it be possible to have so many people dedicate their lives to spreading a message from someone that no one could confirm even existed? And it's not like we're talking about introducing god to these people. Probably everyone believed in some kind of deity. They were being convinced that what they believed was wrong and this was right. I'm not completely sold yet but without definitive proof this is the most compelling argument for me so far.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

There were no motivations to "fabricate" things. These guys weren't in it for material gain.

Most likely Jesus shared events with his apostles. After all, they walked everywhere they went. I'm sure they discussed almost everything that happened.

That being said, if the bible is inspired, this stuff shouldn't bother you. If its not, this thread is a waste of all of our time.

Perhaps they didn't benefit materially but you can't deny there's a benefit from being accepted as a dude that hung around with God.

They lived in a Jewish world, and we're viciously persecuted. Many of the original apostles were killed. I fail to see the benefits.

What benefits did Jim Jones' apostles get?

Was Jim Jones not a real person? I don't follow.

Just pointing out that the "fact" that they were viciously persecuted means nothing.

It means a lot in the framework of the discussion I was having. Just being persecuted doesn't make them right, I agree. But the implication of a few posters was that they had a lot to gain by being apostles, possibly enough to fabricate entire stories, events and maybe even Jesus himself. My position is that it really wasn't a great life they all led, from the point of view of the average person at that time.As an aside, Jim Jones' followers were brainwashed and died in a mass suicide with him present. Jesus followers continued living under persecution for years after his death. Kind of silly to try and link the two, as they are both fundamentally different situations.

You're right. Sounds like Jim Jones' people were much more dedicated to the cause than Jesus' apostles. And you really shouldn't be bringing up brainwashing... you know that whole throwing stones in glass houses thing.

 

[timschochet]

Question: (not a challenge; I honestly don't know the answer). Do we have evidence, outside of the Bible, for any of the other New Testament characters?

John the Baptist?

Pontius Pilate?

Barrabas?

Any of the Apostles?

Paul of Damascus?

If there is evidence of any of these folks, then it seems to me that would at least strengthen the likelihood that a man named Jesus existed.

 

[shader]

...If I was profoundly moved by hearing Jesus speak at the time and heard later on that he was crucified, it would have much more impact than if I had never heard him speak.

Christianity formed almost exclusively out of people that never heard Jesus speak. Either the Jerusalem Jewish Christian faded away into history or they ran off to Pella prior to the fall of the Temple where for all practical purposes they faded away into history. What survives and eventually thrives is the gentile Christians that were not part of Jesus' ministry.

According to you.According to the book of Christianity, it formed shortly after Jesus death.

Sure, eventually Christianity in bulk was comprised of people who never heard him actually speak, but that's kind of obvious.

Actually according to that book of yours. See Paul's vision and compare and contrast to Peter and James little commune.

Yeah...Again, we get totally different things out of our readings, apparently.

 

[shader]

It's pretty clear from the writings and the evidence, that the christians honestly believed what they wrote. I'm not saying that in itself made it right, just that i don't see how anyone could try and attribute false motives to them.

Whether the believed it is probably self evident, but that doesn't mean that there are not clear and blatant agendas that make its way into the text. Some of this (treatment of Jews, especially the Pharisees, sucking up to Rome, trashing followers that have their own followers) can pretty clearly suggest at least that false motives should be attached to it.

You pull the strangest messages out of the bible of anyone I've ever discussed the bible with.

"Love thy Neighbor" is pretty foreign to most of us.

I would agree with you on that one

 

[shader]

Where could the starting point of Christianity have originated from if not from a singular person?

It could have come partially from a combination of real events from the lives of various real people, and partially from fictional sources.For example, the story of a preacher in Galilee whose followers thought he was the Messiah and who got crucified by the Romans could have been based on Yehuda of Galilee. And the story of a Nazarene named Jesus whom the Jewish leadership got mad at and executed could have come from Yeshua ben Pandera. Maybe the bit about the resurrection came from Osiris. Etc.

Even if the stories were a compilation of different events, someone had to affix it to a person and give that person a name.

That seems like the easy part. Combining aspects of several different stories to form a composite seems natural in the context of oral storytelling tradition.

Perhaps if it was actually oral story telling, your theory might have merit. The facts are, however, that things were written down on paper.After all, most scholars think Mark was completed around 70. Even if that rather late date is true, that's hardly enough time for oral story telling legends to decay to the point where they are getting resurrection myths from Osirus mixed up with two people that lived a few years back.

Who is going to disagree with the resurrection myth - the same people that didn't even believe he was the messiah? The people that wrote the Bible could make up anything they wanted about Jesus and there was no one reputable to argue about it. I'm sure they based the character on a real guy with a good message, but it really seems like they created the religion they wanted out him.

I'm not really discussing the resurrection here. I'm discussing the fact that it was implied that they used three different stories and merged them into one man, just 30 years after his death.

 

[shader]

Where could the starting point of Christianity have originated from if not from a singular person?

It could have come partially from a combination of real events from the lives of various real people, and partially from fictional sources.For example, the story of a preacher in Galilee whose followers thought he was the Messiah and who got crucified by the Romans could have been based on Yehuda of Galilee. And the story of a Nazarene named Jesus whom the Jewish leadership got mad at and executed could have come from Yeshua ben Pandera. Maybe the bit about the resurrection came from Osiris. Etc.

This passage explains why it was necessary to include a story of his resurrection:

1 Corinthians 15:14-17 And if Christ has not been raised , our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we [the apostles] are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised , then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

Look, either the writers were frauds, either they were highly deceived, or they were telling the truth. To act as if they would "insert" a resurrection story is to basically call them frauds. I can't imagine Paul writing the above passage, and then realizing "hey I better go back to those gospels we are writing and insert a cool resurrection story so that we'll get more believers".

It's pretty clear from the writings and the evidence, that the christians honestly believed what they wrote. I'm not saying that in itself made it right, just that i don't see how anyone could try and attribute false motives to them.

Question - how did Paul know the exact order in which Jesus showed himself? Was this really part of the conversation when he met a reincarnated Jesus? It's all too convenient to convince people that Jesus was in fact God.

“For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time” (1 Cor 15:3-8, NKJV).

As for fraud, it's well accepted among SOME Biblical scholars that several books of the Bible are indeed frauds (not written by who they claim to be written by).

A really simple answer would be that everyone actually talked among themselves and shared information. I also made a change to your last statement. It's not as universal as you'd like to think. Of course any scholar that is actually religious doesn't count, I'm sure.

 

[shader]

What Jesus told the disciples when he was alive:

And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. (KJV Bible, Matthew 10:1-7)

What Jesus told the disciples after he died:

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.(KJV Bible, Matthew 28:16-20)

Israel was given the first opportunity, then it was expanded to the entire world. Not sure what your point is here. This is a pretty straight-forward fundamental issue.

 

[shader]

If I was profoundly moved by hearing Jesus speak at the time and heard later on that he was crucified, it would have much more impact than if I had never heard him speak.

This is apparently not the case, judging by all the people who believe based just on what someone else tells them

Belief in an established religion, sure. I'm talking about starting one from scratch. It seems as if there were any number of wannabe messiahs and prophets vying for peoples attention. It seems less likely that an imaginary one would make more impact over someone who actually existed and preached before them. You could attach a story better to someone that you know.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. If I know the person or had seen them speak, I might realize that 'no way is that person God'. good speaker, good message, but thats all. but for some people, if they'd never come across the person, it would actually increase the chances they believed. they lose the ability to judge for themselves and are left to the stories they are told, which they can't prove false and if enough people tell them they are true, they can start to believe them. I guess what I'm saying is that when it comes to ridiculous stories, the farther you are away from it, its possible that there's a better the chance you'll believe it.

Yeah, but I'm talking about the very, very first believers. Would it be possible to have so many people dedicate their lives to spreading a message from someone that no one could confirm even existed? And it's not like we're talking about introducing god to these people. Probably everyone believed in some kind of deity. They were being convinced that what they believed was wrong and this was right. I'm not completely sold yet but without definitive proof this is the most compelling argument for me so far.

Jamny, why are you continuing to argue regarding a historical Jesus? It seems obvious to you that he was at the least, historical. It's inconceivable that he was a fiction. Anyone arguing so, is doing so not on any evidence at all, but on 100% bull-headed irrational thinking.There are countless books written about him (both biblical and non-biblical) in the 100-150 years after his death. I don't see a reason why some are so dogmatic about his non-existence.

 

[shader]

There were no motivations to "fabricate" things. These guys weren't in it for material gain.

Most likely Jesus shared events with his apostles. After all, they walked everywhere they went. I'm sure they discussed almost everything that happened.

That being said, if the bible is inspired, this stuff shouldn't bother you. If its not, this thread is a waste of all of our time.

Perhaps they didn't benefit materially but you can't deny there's a benefit from being accepted as a dude that hung around with God.

They lived in a Jewish world, and we're viciously persecuted. Many of the original apostles were killed. I fail to see the benefits.

What benefits did Jim Jones' apostles get?

Was Jim Jones not a real person? I don't follow.

Just pointing out that the "fact" that they were viciously persecuted means nothing.

It means a lot in the framework of the discussion I was having. Just being persecuted doesn't make them right, I agree. But the implication of a few posters was that they had a lot to gain by being apostles, possibly enough to fabricate entire stories, events and maybe even Jesus himself. My position is that it really wasn't a great life they all led, from the point of view of the average person at that time.As an aside, Jim Jones' followers were brainwashed and died in a mass suicide with him present. Jesus followers continued living under persecution for years after his death. Kind of silly to try and link the two, as they are both fundamentally different situations.

You're right. Sounds like Jim Jones' people were much more dedicated to the cause than Jesus' apostles. And you really shouldn't be bringing up brainwashing... you know that whole throwing stones in glass houses thing.

I'm astonished you think I'm brainwashed.

 

[jamny]

If I was profoundly moved by hearing Jesus speak at the time and heard later on that he was crucified, it would have much more impact than if I had never heard him speak.

This is apparently not the case, judging by all the people who believe based just on what someone else tells them

Belief in an established religion, sure. I'm talking about starting one from scratch. It seems as if there were any number of wannabe messiahs and prophets vying for peoples attention. It seems less likely that an imaginary one would make more impact over someone who actually existed and preached before them. You could attach a story better to someone that you know.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. If I know the person or had seen them speak, I might realize that 'no way is that person God'. good speaker, good message, but thats all. but for some people, if they'd never come across the person, it would actually increase the chances they believed. they lose the ability to judge for themselves and are left to the stories they are told, which they can't prove false and if enough people tell them they are true, they can start to believe them. I guess what I'm saying is that when it comes to ridiculous stories, the farther you are away from it, its possible that there's a better the chance you'll believe it.

Yeah, but I'm talking about the very, very first believers. Would it be possible to have so many people dedicate their lives to spreading a message from someone that no one could confirm even existed? And it's not like we're talking about introducing god to these people. Probably everyone believed in some kind of deity. They were being convinced that what they believed was wrong and this was right. I'm not completely sold yet but without definitive proof this is the most compelling argument for me so far.

Jamny, why are you continuing to argue regarding a historical Jesus? It seems obvious to you that he was at the least, historical. It's inconceivable that he was a fiction. Anyone arguing so, is doing so not on any evidence at all, but on 100% bull-headed irrational thinking.There are countless books written about him (both biblical and non-biblical) in the 100-150 years after his death. I don't see a reason why some are so dogmatic about his non-existence.

because I'm not yet convinced. That's the reason I started the thread.It has helped me though towards a belief that he did.

 

[shader]

Question: (not a challenge; I honestly don't know the answer). Do we have evidence, outside of the Bible, for any of the other New Testament characters?

John the Baptist?

Pontius Pilate?

Barrabas?

Any of the Apostles?

Paul of Damascus?

If there is evidence of any of these folks, then it seems to me that would at least strengthen the likelihood that a man named Jesus existed.

Well it depends on what you define as evidence. Pontius Pilate is a historical person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

You can look at the writings of all the early church fathers (in the early part of the 2nd century), and find clear evidence of the apostle John. They speak of the other apostles as real people as well. I just don't know if you'll see that as evidence or not.

That's right off the top of my head. Not sure what else there is.

 

[Black Box]

Question: (not a challenge; I honestly don't know the answer). Do we have evidence, outside of the Bible, for any of the other New Testament characters?

John the Baptist?

Pontius Pilate?

Barrabas?

Any of the Apostles?

Paul of Damascus?

If there is evidence of any of these folks, then it seems to me that would at least strengthen the likelihood that a man named Jesus existed.

John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus.Pilate's name famously showed up on a carved inscription dubbed the Pilate Stone. He is also mentioned in Josephus's and Philo's writings when writing about the Jews and things Pilate did to piss them off.

I would guess that Barrabas probably shows up in non-cannonical gospels, but I'm not 100% sure on that point.

The same goes for the apostles appearing in non-cannonical gospels. They also show up in writings of early "church fathers".

Paul's writings survived, so I would wager somebody wrote them

*This is by no means exhaustive... just going off the top of my head.

 

[Black Box]

#shader on a roll... can't keep up with his postings...

 

[dickey moe]

How many Jews you know named Jesus? That's right, none.Why is that?

How many Mexicans you know named Shlomo?

 

[shader]

Question: (not a challenge; I honestly don't know the answer). Do we have evidence, outside of the Bible, for any of the other New Testament characters?

John the Baptist?

Pontius Pilate?

Barrabas?

Any of the Apostles?

Paul of Damascus?

If there is evidence of any of these folks, then it seems to me that would at least strengthen the likelihood that a man named Jesus existed.

John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus.Pilate's name famously showed up on a carved inscription dubbed the Pilate Stone. He is also mentioned in Josephus's and Philo's writings when writing about the Jews and things Pilate did to piss them off.

I would guess that Barrabas probably shows up in non-cannonical gospels, but I'm not 100% sure on that point.

The same goes for the apostles appearing in non-cannonical gospels. They also show up in writings of early "church fathers".

Paul's writings survived, so I would wager somebody wrote them

*This is by no means exhaustive... just going off the top of my head.

BTW, It's unlikely to find inscriptions and official documents that mention the apostles. They were nobodies in the ancient world. If you consider that Pilate was a prefect and there are really only a few mentions of him, you wouldn't expect ordinary Jews to get their name in the record books of the day.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Would it be possible to have so many people dedicate their lives to spreading a message from someone that no one could confirm even existed?

For the most part, at the time we're talking about, nobody could confirm anybody existed. As you know, most people didn't have Internet back then — or even newspapers or radio. Word traveled by mouth, and most people didn't travel much. According to Cyril in Breaking Away, Jesus never went more than 30 miles from his home. So pretty much every message would have been about someone that no one could confirm existed.In the rare case that a message was about someone that the audience was familiar with, the message would more be easily debunkable, which is bad for its memetic prominence.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus.

Josephus also mentions the guy that was dead and resurrected by his father. So does Tacitus. Both seem to accept this as fact in both the AntiquitiesI and X and Annals. This guy is Hercules of course.