Was Jesus a real person?

[Rage]

Most people in the USA would proably agree that jesus was a real person, while many disagree that he was divine. After looking around on the internet I have seen the following passages.


In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. Luke 2: 1-5


This isn't contradictory by itself, but it sets out important timeline issues. This passage puts Jesus' birth around the time of the Census of Quirinius, which was around 6 or 7 A.D.

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. Luke 3:1-2


The fifteenth year Caesars reign is generally accepted as 28 or 29 AD. This is talking about the ministry of John the Baptist, who started his ministry shortly before Jesus Christ.


When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry... Luke 3: 21-23a


Jesus was around 30 years old in the year 28 or 29 AD. This places his birth around 1-3 BC, contradicting the earlier verses that say his birth was around 6 AD.

lol, typo?

-Fawkes

[Yardstick]

You are in fact right that biblical passages seem to disagree as to when Jesus was born.

As far as Jesus existing? It seems most likely that a historical Jesus did infact exist.

[Publius]

Yes, there probably was a guy named Jesus (Yeshua, Joshua) around this time, probably did some things, probably traveled about it, made a few speeches, maybe was put down by the Romans.

Was he the son of God? You tell me.

It really would be doubtful to base a myth like Christianity on an entirely fictional person. That'd really be attributing a level of cohesion to early Christianity that just doesn't seem to exist. Really, there just seems to be a legend that sprung up around a Jewish rabble rouser. Enter a fucking loon like Paul and you get Christianity.

EDIT: I want to bring this up, too. There's a book you all should read, that's simultaneously a fictional retelling of the Jesus myth (Yeshua, actually, but it is 'Jesus'' look it up) and a satire of Stalinist Russia. It's called [I]The Master and Margarita[I] and it was written by Mikhail Bulgakov. It's easily the best book I've ever read.

What's interesting though is how much more real to life this fiction of Jesus' life probably is to the fictions in the Bible.

It's also just a fantastic book.

[Hit The North]

As far as I know, there is absolutely no reliable evidence that Jesus existed at all. The first accounts of his life were written more than a generation after he was suppose to have lived. Most of this biographical information is cannibalized from earlier mythological figures, especially, Mythras.

[Publius]

As far as I know, there is absolutely no reliable evidence that Jesus existed at all. The first accounts of his life were written more than a generation after he was suppose to have lived. Most of this biographical information is cannibalized from earlier mythological figures, especially, Mythras.

There are secular accounts, granted I think the earliest one dates to 60 or 60 AD, as you said, a generation too late, but still, I think the more likely explanation was that there was some guy named Yeshua who lived around that time in around that place and walked around preaching. It just seems like something rather strange to invent, when in fact there were many people who did just that: walk around and preach heterodox views. So it would make perfect sense to attach your mythology to a real person, or at least someone who was real at one time.

Now whether anything attirubted to Jesus actually happened, that's of course doubtful.

[LSD]

Did Jesus exist? Maybe, maybe not.

There might well have been a person with a similar name living around the time of the first century, but he almost certainly bore no similarity to the mythical Jesus figure of Christianity.

For a more indepth discussion of the historiography of the Christ Legend, I suggsest you look through some previous discussions (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59395) on the subject. The sources haven't changed since, and neither has the consensus.


EDIT: I want to bring this up, too. There's a book you all should read, that's simultaneously a fictional retelling of the Jesus myth (Yeshua, actually, but it is 'Jesus'' look it up) and a satire of Stalinist Russia. It's called [i]The Master and Margarita[I] and it was written by Mikhail Bulgakov. It's easily the best book I've ever read.

Outstanding book, probably the most important Russian book since State and Revolution, not that this lot would be interested...

[spartan]

I believe that Jesus was a real person but not the son of God (Like he is thought to have claimed).

To me Jesus was advocating a different system, to the Roman Imperialist system set up after the Roman conquest of Israel, and was killed for it as he was essentially advocating the equality of all and the destruction of the rich peoples money and power.

[Colonello Buendia]

there are two views that interest me, one is the theory put forth in Zeitgeist, that Jesus is an allegory of the sun and is used to chart the Suns movement through the sky, the other is that he was a peaceful revolutionary against the Romans, I'm currently leaning towards the former but I'm not sure

[RedKnight]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

[Devrim]

There is no direct evidence for Jesus' existence. Nevertheless, the indirect evidence makes it probable, but not certain that there was a real human at the base of the myths.

Actually Kautsky wrote an interesting book on the subject, Foundations of Christianity (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/)

Devrim

[Sentinel]

To me Jesus was advocating a different system, to the Roman Imperialist system set up after the Roman conquest of Israel, and was killed for it as he was essentially advocating the equality of all and the destruction of the rich peoples money and power.


Actually, we don't know if he really advocated shit. We just know what a Roman citizen named Saulos of Tarsos and some other hardly credible sources say he did, in a compilation of ancient texts, a shitty history book called the bible.

But even if we were to believe this pointless collection of myths, the story would for an observant reader rather indicate, that he was more of a reformer of Judaism the religion, than Judea the country.

According to the bible he also blatantly supported the empire as well as it's monetary and taxation systems, with comments such as: Réddite ergo quae sunt Cáesaris Cáesari, et quae sunt Dei Deo (Jesus on imperial taxes, 'so give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, and God what belongs to God').

This in a rebellious overseas province, where Roman imperial power was far from consolidated, and could well have been successfully overthrown. Hardly a revolutionary, eh?

[Sky]

Jesus Christ was created out of totem beliefs or cults similar to those of Osiris and Tammuz. The legend of Christ is a variant of Buddha or the product of astrological speculation. Christian thought is derived from Greco-Roman philosophy such as the Roman Stoic Seneca. As Engels asserted, Philo of Alexandria was "the father of Christianity".

There are discrpencies in the New Testament about Christ. There are errors in the description of the life and natural environment of Palestine. There is an absence of information on Christ in the works of I century Greco-Roman writers; the authenticity of the writings of Josphus Flavius and Tacitus are disputable. The Gospels were written at the end of II century and the image of Christ was influenced by Plutarch.

[Asoka89]

The image of Christ as portrayed in art, culture and perhaps even the Bible was influenced by Greco-Roman philosophy, but there was a preecher and relgious leader in Palestine, called Jesus, around the time of his life and I believe some of his preechings and his teachings are indeed his own.

I dont care much for religion, but the calls for social justice and equality in the Bible are undeniable.

[LSD]

Sky, you do realize that there's a thread on this exact topic three topics down from this one? Was it really nescessary to start an entirely new one....?

On second thought, don't answer, I'll do it for you.

Merged!


but there was a preecher and relgious leader in Palestine, called Jesus, around the time of his life and I believe some of his preechings and his teachings are indeed his own.

Again, possibly yes, possibly no. The evidence is pretty unclear. Certainly there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus' existance, nor a single reliable account of the man until well after his purpoted death.

Which means that even if there was an existant person around whom the Jesus myth was constructed, he almost certainly bore no resemblence to the "Jesus Christ" of the Bible.

Insofar as his "teachings", the fact is there really aren't that many truly novel things "taught" in the New Testament. When you actually go over the Bible and break down what it's saying, you discover pretty quickly that it's not saying much of anything at all.

Jesus' fundamental message is that he is God and we should worship him. Apart from that, and some regurgitated Pharisic and Mithrain nonsense, The "teachings" of Jesus amount to nil.

That's why the Roman state took such a liking to Christianity as a state religion. It's the perfect "faith" to prop up a tyranny since it has so little to say on matters of consequence.

So longer as your "embracing Jesus", slavery, racism, sexism, oppression, it's all acceptable.

This notion of "Jesus" as some sort of egalitarian "revolutionary" is pure 18th century invention. A pathetic attempt by enlightenment Christians to make "Jesus" compatible with the modern world.

If there was a Jesus, however, he was without a doubt a conservative and a reactionary through and through.


I dont care much for religion, but the calls for social justice and equality in the Bible are undeniable.

Really? Then how come I'm denying them?

But I'll bite, go ahead and make the case for Jesus as a "social justice" advocate. :rolleyes:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by LSD+December 30, 2007 04:05 am--> (LSD @ December 30, 2007 04:05 am) The evidence is pretty unclear. Certainly there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus' existance, nor a single reliable account of the man until well after his purpoted death. [/b]
True, though I would like to point out that the same holds true for most people that we know about in the Ancient World. Socrates, for example, never wrote anything (or at least not anything that we have found) and nearly everything we know about him comes from the alegorical depictions of his student Plato - all written after the supposed death of Socrates. Was Socrates a real person?


Originally posted by [email protected]
This notion of "Jesus" as some sort of egalitarian "revolutionary" is pure 18th century invention. A pathetic attempt by enlightenment Christians to make "Jesus" compatible with the modern world.
Really? Did they write the New Testament in the 18th century? :rolleyes:


LSD
If there was a Jesus, however, he was without a doubt a conservative and a reactionary through and through.
There are only two options for what the historical Jesus might have been like: Either (a) he was like the Jesus of the Bible, or (b) he was not.

If (a), then Jesus was certainly anti-conservative, anti-establishment and a revolutionary (albeit a pacifist one) as the Bible depicts him.

If (b), then we have absolutely no way to know what Jesus really advocated, so any speculation on that subject is moot.

[w0lf]

I believe Jesus was a real person. I do believe he was the son of god. I don't believe he walked on water and all that bull though.

[LSD]

True, though I would like to point out that the same holds true for most people that we know about in the Ancient World. Socrates, for example, never wrote anything (or at least not anything that we have found) and nearly everything we know about him comes from the alegorical depictions of his student Plato - all written after the supposed death of Socrates. Was Socrates a real person?

Actually, in addition to Plato's acounts we also have Xenothon's (another student), and the less than favourable depictions by his contemporary Aristophanes. But point taken, our information on Socrates is hardly unbiased.

There are a couple of key differences, however, between the two cases. For one thing, in the case of Socrates we do have primary accounts of his life, from at least three independent accounts.

Two of his students can be incontrovertible identified and their direct accounts have survived. For not one of Jesus' alledged disciplies can the same be said.

Not only are there no independent contemporary accounts of Jesus' life, there are no contemporary accounts at all. Not a single document exists written by someone who had actually met, or even alledged to have met, the man himself.

None of which means that he didn't exist, of course, it just means that there isn't any proof that he did.

What's more relevent to the question of the historicity of Jesus is the issue that, according to the myth, Jesus Christ was an incredibly prominent and influential figure. The fact that no one bothered to even jot down his name during his lifetime casts serious doubt upon that characterization.

Therefore while it is possible that someone may well have served as the underlying motivation for the construction of the Jesus myth, the Jesus Christ of the Bible almost certainly never lived.


Really? Did they write the New Testament in the 18th century?

No! Which is why it's such a decidely conservative document. It was only in the past few centuries that enlightenment schollars began to "reconceptualize" how the Bible should be read.

That's why slavery was only outlawed by the Church in the last 150 years. That's why, until the middle of this century, the Church's official position was that woman's suffrage be opposed. That's why, even today, the majority of Christians worldwide oppose fundmental gay rights.

Now so-called "moderate" Christians will tell you that their more conservative brethren are being "too literal" in their reading of the gospels. But this is precisely the "reconceptualization" I'm talking about. Because for 1500 years, no one doubted that when Jesus told slaves to obey their masters, he meant it!

Once social and political forces began to turn against slavery, suddenly Jesus' statement was reinterpreted as being an esoteric statement on life, rather than the clear commandment it appeared to be.

More sensible Christians simply suggested that Jesus' words reflected the "best wisdom of the day" and that he only supported slavery because it was of his era. And in that analysis, they are precisely spot on. For the Biblical "Jesus" is, above all, a memetic creature.

"Jesus Christ" was invented to appeal to the masses. As such, "his" teachings are full of apeals and invitations to the poor and downtrodden. And superficially, the New Testament would appear to offer them some sort of hope.

But when you atually break down Jesus' message in practical terms, it is one of obeyance and subserviance, nothing more. Again, that's why it was so quickly adapted by the Roman elite.

When we analyze Stalin, we don't care that he promised socialism, we care that he delivered torment. Likewise, whatever Jesus' rhetoric his commandments and proscriptions speak for themselves.

There is absolutely nothing "revolutionary"about "Jesus" or the religion he spawned, and the attempt by Christian "socialists" to pretend that there is would be laughable if it wasn't taken so seriously by far too much of the left.


There are only two options for what the historical Jesus might have been like: Either (a) he was like the Jesus of the Bible, or (b) he was not.

Actually there are several more options than that. There are the two extremes, (a) and (b), but there are also all the myriad of possibilities between them, varying from a historical Jesus being very similar to the Bibilical Jesus Christ but not exactly, to him being nearly completely different, but with a slight resemblence.

Obviously we have no way of knowing where on that spectrum, if anywhere, the "real" Jesus lay. Again, we have no evidence that he even existed.

Accordingly it goes without saying that any analysis of the person or positions of "Jesus Christ" speaks in terms of the mythological "Jesus", as recounted in the generally accepted Christian scriptural texts.


If (a), then Jesus was certainly anti-conservative, anti-establishment and a revolutionary (albeit a pacifist one) as the Bible depicts him.

No, actually, the Jesus of the Bible was a decidedly conservative theocratic sexist racist and elitist reactionary, albeit a relatively pacifist one.

[Sentinel]

I believe Jesus was a real person. I do believe he was the son of god. I don't believe he walked on water and all that bull though.

This is quite interesting, would you care to elaborate on your outlook?

You do believe that Jesus was the son of an omnipotent invisible being, one that had created the world in 7 days and all that. But the assumption that this being would have granted his son the ability to do in comparison minor 'miracles', such as walk on water, you dismiss as 'bull'.

Why? Doesn't B follow A only naturally? I mean, it strikes me as absurd that the son of a 'god' couldn't do that stuff. :o

Now, I'm an atheist myself. But as I see it, once you open your mind for irrationality and start believing in the unprovable, why not believe in anything? Poltergeist? Ufos? The Spaghetti Monster? Hidden messages in TV shows? How are they any more likely to be 'bull' than the existence of a 'god'?

Nah, it's both safer and healthier to keep that door shut to begin with, as much for ones own sanity, as for the sake of the safety of ones environment.

[LSD]

I was just assuming that was a typo... ;)

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2008 10:00 am

Not only are there no independent contemporary accounts of Jesus' life, there are no contemporary accounts at all. Not a single document exists written by someone who had actually met, or even alledged to have met, the man himself.


That's not true actually. John, the author of the Gospel Of John (in reality the man who would have been in charge of drafting it) claimed to be the same John that was apparently one of Jesus's disciples. So we at least know that one of the authors of the New Testament claimed to know Jesus. That does not say very much about th accuracy of the claim of course but it isn't true to say there are no written accounts by people who claimed to have known Jesus.

[w0lf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2008 02:29 pm

I believe Jesus was a real person. I do believe he was the son of god. I don't believe he walked on water and all that bull though.

This is quite interesting, would you care to elaborate on your outlook?

You do believe that Jesus was the son of an omnipotent invisible being, one that had created the world in 7 days and all that. But the assumption that this being would have granted his son the ability to do in comparison minor 'miracles', such as walk on water, you dismiss as 'bull'.

Why? Doesn't B follow A only naturally? I mean, it strikes me as absurd that the son of a 'god' couldn't do that stuff. :o

IMO he is a messenger, I don't know really maybe my mind is just fucked up from going to church a lot. I do believe in evolution. I don't believe in hell. I do believe in some sort of afterlife [I hope there is at least] I believe the Earth doesn't belong to us, but who ever created it. Maybe this is just a huge experiment created by a being.

edit: I have sort of an agnostic view of "god" which is weird seeing that I believe in Jesus..

[Brady]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2008 10:00 am


No, actually, the Jesus of the Bible was a decidedly conservative theocratic sexist racist and elitist reactionary, albeit a relatively pacifist one.
Conservative? Possibly by our standards though he was too radical for the Jewish establishment of the time. Theocratic? Almost certainly. But 'sexist, racist and elitist'? Where's your evidence for that?

[LSD]

That's not true actually. John, the author of the Gospel Of John (in reality the man who would have been in charge of drafting it) claimed to be the same John that was apparently one of Jesus's disciples.

No, actually, he doesn't. Nor, in fact, does the Gospel of John even claim to have been written by someone named "John"! Like with the other canonical Gospels, the naming scheme was invented decades, if not centuries, after their initial drafting.

There are a couple (or more accurately, one and a half) places in John where the author appears to be speaking in the first person, but the majority is written in a third person impersonal style, and nowhere does the author actually assert that he himself knew or met Jesus Christ.


Conservative? Possibly by our standards though he was too radical for the Jewish establishment of the time.

Yeah, radically conservative.

Jesus's problem with the Jewish establishment was that it wasn't hardlne enough; he had no objection to rank inequality or dogmatic oppression, what bothered him was the "corruption" of Biblical ordainment and elevation of the "temporal".

Which is why, of course, he never saught to overthrow the Jewish theocratic infastructure, just replace it with people loyal to him and his particular version of conservative Judaism.

A lot is made of Jesus's comments condeming the rich, but what's missed is that his problem with wealth isn't the inequality in engenders, but the "secular" actions which produce it. In "his" mind, absolutely everything must be in the service of "God" and "God" alone. At least the Jewish oligarchy allowed a certain pragmatic seperation between religious observance and regular life.

Simple class interest assured that they had long ago reached a comfortable working toleration for scriptural violations so long as they remained sufficiently "out of mind". But for the extremists, this was an intolerable state of affairs and had to be replaced with a "pure" theocracy.

Kinf of like what Osama Bin Laden is calling for in Saudi Arabia...

[MarxSchmarx]

Sorry for being so dense, but why does it matter whether "He" "really existed"?

How is this question even resolvable?

[LSD]

Sorry for being so dense, but why does it matter whether "He" "really existed"?

Depends on your perspective. From a Christian one, "his" existance is axiomatic so historicity is irrelvent; from an apostatic one, proof of his non-existance would matter a great deal, as it would prove the entire foundations of Christianity to be fraudulent; similarly for evangelic adherents of other religions.

Most importantly, however, it matters to those of us who study history and who care about compiling an accurate account of our past. It matters for the same reason that the existance of Socrates matters, for the same reason that the existance of Yu-huang would. Because understanding who and what has gone before helps us to understand what is happening today, and what will happen tomorrow.


How is this question even resolvable?

Like many historical questions, it might not be. Certain discoveres would definitively prove the affirmative, however, such as incontrovertible contemporary accounts or supportably primary documentation.

As usual, proving the negative is much much harder.

[MarxSchmarx]

From a Christian one, "his" existance is axiomatic so historicity is irrelvent; from an apostatic one, proof of his non-existance would matter a great deal, as it would prove the entire foundations of Christianity to be fraudulent;

I see your point.
But it seems fraudulence is established by the oxymoronic "virgin-birth", "life after death", much less the crap about walking on water and healing leprosy.
Given the enormous stretches of logic already required, the historical existence of Jesus still seems rather a moot point. Indeed, most mainline denominations consider at least some parts of the New Testament to be suspect or allegorical.



Certain discoveres would definitively prove the affirmative, however, such as incontrovertible contemporary accounts or supportably primary documentation.

Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with Josephus, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus?

[LSD]

But it seems fraudulence is established by the oxymoronic "virgin-birth", "life after death", much less the crap about walking on water and healing leprosy.

Well a supernaturalistic birth is obviously supernaturalistic, so if you go in to it assuming that virgin birth is impossible than the historicity of Jesus becomes less important, as it can no longer be demonstrated as a member of that set. However the numerous mythologies that have developed around Jesus Christ are irrelevent insofar as determining credibility. Real persons have often been ascribed "magical" powers. The fact that such powers may not be possesed (as far as we know) does not mean that the magician did not.


most mainline denominations consider at least some parts of the New Testament to be suspect or allegorical.
They do indeed.


Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with Josephus, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus?

There's nothing "wrong" with their accounts, it's just that they're not strong enoughh (http://www.revleft.com/vb/holy-blood-holy-t46406/index2.html?highlight=Josephus)

[Invader Zim]

Certainly there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus' existance, nor a single reliable account of the man until well after his purpoted death.

Three points (I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you, as a fence sitter, I am more than happy to argue on either side of this debate): -

Unfortunately the same can be said of a goodly number of individuals from the past; the vast majority in fact.

There is also the issue that the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed around 70 A.D. along with a large portion of the documents and texts contained within.

Dating the sources is by no means an exact science. Firstly this is because we do not have the origionals and even the oldest copies exist only as fragments; which means that historians employ internal dating, and unsupprisingly the dating of even individual documents from the New Testiment varies widely. In some cases you see dating of individual gospels, especially Mark, as early as the late 40's early 50's. While traditional dating suggests between 65-75 and other dating about 80-90.

So I really do think that anyone who claims to have the answer to this question, whether they take either side of the debate, has to ignore or at least dismiss some highly salient factors.

[LSD]

The answer is we don't know, plain and simple.