Jesus Christ! Fact or fiction?

Tapfret wrote: A highly recommended read re: theological parallels. The name changes, the script, not so much.

I can't think of a single topic that's more open to wishful thinking, apart from the very existence of god (or any god, for that matter).

To me there's only one certain fact concerning the matter and that's: nobody knows.

As far as I'm concerned, the subject's history is just littered with bloody know-it-alls, who, in the end, have wasted their own and everyone else's time (well, the time of those dumb enough to listen, anyway) with totally useless garbage instead of doing something useful like washing their hair, for instance. Whole libraries are full of this hogwash. Unbelievable!

Any deeply religious person is, in my mind, in the grip of some powerful mass hysteria.

I think it possible that a god might exist; personal experiences leads me to believe that it's entirely likely, but any organized religion be damned and go to some non-existent hell, where they will be forced to suffer the inept ministrations of dozens of inexperienced and cap-handed virgins or whatever. They'll probably rip your foreskins right off.

CosmicVibration wrote: For your information I’ve read the entire Bible, cover to cover; well over 30 years ago.  Since then I’ve only read a few passages here and there.  After first reading it in its entirety I thought it was total rubbish.

So, as I said, you've not read the bible much then...

CosmicVibration wrote: I now recognize it’s just too deep and mysteriously complicated for me and the human intellect to decipher.   To unravel the many mysteries it contains one needs to be somewhat enlightened.  But if one is enlightened there’s no need to read it.  How’s that for a catch 22?

That's utter drivel and isn't an example of catch 22. It was written by humans for humans and the intellects that wrote it were no smarter (or no dumber) than us. Calling it "the word of god" doesn't mean that god played any part in its production. Aside from some very vague prophecies in the later books of both testaments (where I suspect the effects of the frankincense and myrrh were starting to kick-in) there are no deep mysteries in the bible, it is merely a collection Bronze and Iron Age writings that are open to ambiguous interpretation when read through modern eyes.

CosmicVibration wrote: Probably wrong on my part but I was viewing royalty as more of a lifestyle than a bloodline.   sh*t,  if I go back far enough maybe I’m of  royal descent.  Or most likely of a Gypsy clan,  given my many different nationalities.

Go back far enough and everyone is of royal descent. Not knowing what your different nationalities are I couldn't begin to speculate which royal lines you are related to but if there are several nationalities in your bloodline then every one of those would be connected to the royalty of that nationality if you go back far enough. So it's most likely that you are a descendant of several different royal households, including that of the Romani people if you have Gypsy ancestors.

CosmicVibration wrote: In any case, I did not know that Jesus was of royal descent.  I learned something today..

I would have to say most modern scholars concur with high probability that there was an historical Jesus. Argue amongst yourselves regarding the plausibility of the Gospels as historical documents about this Jesus, however. In addition, there is also archaeological evidence that confirms both Nazareth and Bethlehem predate Jesus. What is remarkable is not that there are few contemporary reports of an historical Jesus, but that there are any at all, and that they survived, given the era and the remoteness of Jerusalem as an outlying province of Rome.

Edited by The Dark Elf - January 22 2017 at 03:34

SteveG wrote: HackettFan wrote: SteveG wrote: Convenient comparisons do more to hurt one's argument then to help them. Let's take this one for instance, without going through very many, off the top of my head, I can tell you that the main differences lie with the source of the comparisons. That Krishna was crucified is found only in a select Hindu oral tradition and not in the Hindu's authoritative text titled the Mahabharata, which also includes the philosophical treatise known as the Bhagavad Gita. Both of these texts would be comparable to the Christian Bible and it's text which focuses on Christ called the New Testament, and relates all of the Christ tales. I very much disagree with your idea that an oral tradition poses an unlikely source. You are presuming literary approach to mythological comparisons, that the mechanism of diffusion of mythological motifs arises through people directly reading and appropriating what they want to use from prior stories. I think rather that mythology is grounded in ritual, tradition, and religious practice of actual religions. It is more likely through gradual transmission of such tradition, ritual and religious practice that mythological motifs get diffused and indirectly appropriated. No comment though on your other points. I did not say that it was an unlikely source, but an unreliable one. The Mahabharata is thousands of years old and oral traditions can be hundreds, if not thousands, of years newer. Christianity arrived in full force with the advent of the British colonization of India. Christian missionaries could have influenced the local oral traditions which resulted with these so called Krishna crucifixion and resurrection stories, with an attempt by locals to show a "my God did it first" agenda. Oral sources can also evolve over time and be corrupted. This is why its preferable to compare ancient written sources against other ancient written sources, and why RUkiddingVarese's written vs oral comparisons hold little weight with academics.

I mistook your point for another, then. Thanks for your clarification. Again, with what's posted here, I'm still scratching my head when you say, "Oral sources can also evolve over time and be corrupted." Well, I start to think to myself, so can the written sources, as they're just a snapshot of yet older oral sources. But I interpret this now as referring to the time depth of the evidence. Indeed, quite true, the time depth of evidence is certainly an important consideration in filtering out later innovations from a comparison.





Edited by HackettFan - January 21 2017 at 18:05

lazland wrote: Dean wrote: lazland wrote: omphaloskepsis wrote: More then likely, Jesus did exist and was crucified, although most the Bible stories are a crucifiction.   In fact, much of the Bible is based on historical fact, being a story of God's "chosen people". It is the miracles, resurrection, and other such instances which require faith. Much? Meh, not so much, and even then it's likely to be heavily embellished with little to differentiate history from legend. The "history" books of the OT are essentially the first 17 books, though the pentatuech is more an allegorically (re)imagined history than anything that anyone could rightly call historical fact. Of the remaining 12 books a couple or three of them could be regarded as fictional writings (similar to parables or fables) rather than factual accounts of real historic events so that means that only 9 of the 39 books of the OT are in anyway relate to a telling of history - how factual they are is open to debate as very little of the Bronze and Iron Age history they tell of has been verified by archaeology.  Similarly only 5 of the 27 books of the NT relate to anything that can be regarded as historical and there are sufficient inconsistencies between those five books to raise doubts over their factual veracity. But it has to be remembered that both testaments are primarily for religious instruction, not historical accuracy.  I subscribe to the Biblical Archaeological Society, more, by the way, out of historical and archaeological interest than religion, although I am also interested in the latter, as you know. The amount of archaeological evidence to support characters and happenings in the Old Testament is surprising, and, in my opinion, rather revealing. I remember my late mother, a committed atheist to her last day, saying to me one day, during a conversation, that the entire Bible was a "work of fiction". I asked her on what that opinion was based, and she said it was "well known". I proceeded to show her the latest evidence regarding King David and the wars against his enemies of the time. Whilst the fable of him felling Goliath can safely be said to be just that, an allegorical fable, the fact is that evidence is clear that he was a ruler, the archaeology supports very strongly the layout of Jerusalem set out in Kings, and numerous tablets have been discovered which support the conflicts and laws described. Turning to the New Testament, there is no doubt whatsoever in modern historical scholarship that Jesus was a living breathing man, and that a very strong oral tradition about his sayings and teachings survived to be set out in both Paul's epistles, and the synaptic gospels. The faith bit comes in if you wish to believe that, for example, he raised both Lazarus and, indeed, himself, from the dead. An earlier post mentioned later historians as some kind of weird "evidence" that Christ was a Roman fiction. Damned stupid argument. Again, virtually every single serious modern scholar agrees that Tacitus (whose histories have stood the test of both time and evidence), Suetonius, et al were writing about a real person, and the fact that his mission created a fair bit of trouble in a far flung, and troublesome, part of the Empire. The books which form part of The Torah, or our Old Testament, were as much a history of a people as they were a religious set of texts. They formed a series of texts of those people attempting to understand their culture and their relationship with God, and how both shaped the world in which they lived, especially those which were written after the initial diaspora following invasions of their lands, and the destruction of the First Temple. Again, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Israelis were ruled by Kings and Judges, and that the evidence quite clearly points to those named in the texts as being real historical people. The same goes for the Prophets. You may think they talked out of their arse, but they were real men and women talking out of their arses. It is very easy for ignorant people to simply dismiss all religion as mere fantasy (for the sake of clarity, although I do not need to do so, I should make it absolutely clear this is not directed at you. You are anything but ignorant, and I enjoy our conversations very much), but I am of the opinion that much of what are now texts of major religions are based upon longstanding oral traditions passed down through the ages, with at least a basis in facts and real people. Again, turning to the Old Testament, the discovery of the texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls surprised many by just how consistent they were with the written versions extant from late Roman times available to us. Does all of this mean that The Bible is the true word of God, passed to us down the ages? Of course not, just as the Koran cannot be definitely proven as being the last testament of God, as revealed to Mohammed by his Angel. This is where faith comes in. I have faith that there is a living God. I believe that He has manifested himself in many ways to many different cultures, not least in the music and lyrics of a certain Mr Anderson I respect the right of people such as yourself to deny that. But I do insist that much of what is written is based at least partly, and, in many instances, more so, in historical fact. It is the Divinely inspired bit which causes the trouble.

Thanks for this post

Not reading the whole thread, but I do believe there was a person named Yeshua bin Yoseph (commonly known as Jesus) who lived and preached in first-century Judea.

I also believe that he would be appalled at a lot of the stuff people have been doing in his name ever since.

Dean wrote: lazland wrote: omphaloskepsis wrote: More then likely, Jesus did exist and was crucified, although most the Bible stories are a crucifiction.   In fact, much of the Bible is based on historical fact, being a story of God's "chosen people". It is the miracles, resurrection, and other such instances which require faith. Much? Meh, not so much, and even then it's likely to be heavily embellished with little to differentiate history from legend. The "history" books of the OT are essentially the first 17 books, though the pentatuech is more an allegorically (re)imagined history than anything that anyone could rightly call historical fact. Of the remaining 12 books a couple or three of them could be regarded as fictional writings (similar to parables or fables) rather than factual accounts of real historic events so that means that only 9 of the 39 books of the OT are in anyway relate to a telling of history - how factual they are is open to debate as very little of the Bronze and Iron Age history they tell of has been verified by archaeology.  Similarly only 5 of the 27 books of the NT relate to anything that can be regarded as historical and there are sufficient inconsistencies between those five books to raise doubts over their factual veracity. But it has to be remembered that both testaments are primarily for religious instruction, not historical accuracy.

I subscribe to the Biblical Archaeological Society, more, by the way, out of historical and archaeological interest than religion, although I am also interested in the latter, as you know.

The amount of archaeological evidence to support characters and happenings in the Old Testament is surprising, and, in my opinion, rather revealing.

I remember my late mother, a committed atheist to her last day, saying to me one day, during a conversation, that the entire Bible was a "work of fiction". I asked her on what that opinion was based, and she said it was "well known". I proceeded to show her the latest evidence regarding King David and the wars against his enemies of the time. Whilst the fable of him felling Goliath can safely be said to be just that, an allegorical fable, the fact is that evidence is clear that he was a ruler, the archaeology supports very strongly the layout of Jerusalem set out in Kings, and numerous tablets have been discovered which support the conflicts and laws described.

Turning to the New Testament, there is no doubt whatsoever in modern historical scholarship that Jesus was a living breathing man, and that a very strong oral tradition about his sayings and teachings survived to be set out in both Paul's epistles, and the synaptic gospels. The faith bit comes in if you wish to believe that, for example, he raised both Lazarus and, indeed, himself, from the dead.

An earlier post mentioned later historians as some kind of weird "evidence" that Christ was a Roman fiction. Damned stupid argument. Again, virtually every single serious modern scholar agrees that Tacitus (whose histories have stood the test of both time and evidence), Suetonius, et al were writing about a real person, and the fact that his mission created a fair bit of trouble in a far flung, and troublesome, part of the Empire.

The books which form part of The Torah, or our Old Testament, were as much a history of a people as they were a religious set of texts. They formed a series of texts of those people attempting to understand their culture and their relationship with God, and how both shaped the world in which they lived, especially those which were written after the initial diaspora following invasions of their lands, and the destruction of the First Temple. Again, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Israelis were ruled by Kings and Judges, and that the evidence quite clearly points to those named in the texts as being real historical people. The same goes for the Prophets. You may think they talked out of their arse, but they were real men and women talking out of their arses.

It is very easy for ignorant people to simply dismiss all religion as mere fantasy (for the sake of clarity, although I do not need to do so, I should make it absolutely clear this is not directed at you. You are anything but ignorant, and I enjoy our conversations very much), but I am of the opinion that much of what are now texts of major religions are based upon longstanding oral traditions passed down through the ages, with at least a basis in facts and real people. Again, turning to the Old Testament, the discovery of the texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls surprised many by just how consistent they were with the written versions extant from late Roman times available to us.

Does all of this mean that The Bible is the true word of God, passed to us down the ages? Of course not, just as the Koran cannot be definitely proven as being the last testament of God, as revealed to Mohammed by his Angel. This is where faith comes in.

I have faith that there is a living God. I believe that He has manifested himself in many ways to many different cultures, not least in the music and lyrics of a certain Mr Anderson

I respect the right of people such as yourself to deny that. But I do insist that much of what is written is based at least partly, and, in many instances, more so, in historical fact. It is the Divinely inspired bit which causes the trouble.

Dean wrote: CosmicVibration wrote: Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. As I gather Krishna was from royalty but Jesus was more of a peasant. You've not read the bible much then.  Chapter 1 of Matthew goes to great length (17 verses) to establish the royal blood line of Abraham to David and then to Jesus (42 generations) while Luke extends that back from Abraham to Adam (76 generations in total). Establishing a direct link back to the biblical first man is somewhat meaningless path as many of the descendants of Adam would not show royal heritage so the only genealogical path of interest is that to King David and for the sake of argument we can say the number of generations from Jesus to King David is roughly 28 (according to Matthew). Archaeological and OT evidence of the reign of David dates him around 970BCE and that makes the length of a generation as approximately 34 years, which stacks up with the general rule-of-thumb of 30 years. This makes Luke and Matthew's genealogy at least mathematically feasible and not just arbitrary lists of names... ...from a mathematical perspective since each person has 2 biological parents, 4 biological grandparents, 8 biological great-grandparents and so on then 28 generations back from Jesus would be 268.4 million biological ancestors, which is 5 times the population of the whole planet at that time and roughly 500 times the population of Israel so there was a hell of a lot of intermarrying within each family and/or tribe. This means that the probability of an Israelite alive in 0CE being a descendant of King David approaches 1, not only that they are also directly related to every other Israelite alive at the time of King David... The royal descent of Jesus is pretty much fundamental to him fulfilling the whole messianic prophecy malarkey where the immaculate conception is merely the icing on the cake...  Also, since Joseph was a tradesman technically he wouldn't have been a peasant so Jesus wouldn't have been either. CosmicVibration wrote: Compare yourself to anyone on this planet and I’m sure you could dredge up a lot of similarities.  Coincidence? There is a significant difference between coincidence, correlation and causation. A correlation is when the similarity is greater than what can be predicted by statistics alone, however if there is nothing that links the cause of the correlation then it is just coincidence. If I compare my eye-colour with anyone on this planet then I'll find that only 1 in 12 people have similar colour eyes as me, yet if I only make that comparison with people who live on the same island as me then I am six times more likely of finding a match and if I travel to Scandiwegia those odds are pretty much reversed with 9 out of 10 people sharing similar eye-colour as me. However if I travel to India or the Middle East then the proportion of people with similar eye-colour to me drops way below 1 in 12 to become insignificantly small. So because there is a strong correlation between my eye colour and specific populations of people then we can expect to find a causation of particular eye-colours that are linked to the genealogical make-up of those populations that makes blue eyes commonplace in some regions and rare as rocking horse poop in others. This is something that can be investigated to identify why there appears to be a causational correlation rather than a statistically anomalous coincidence. Now Eddie's point here is the number of similarities between Jesus, Krishna (and other divine/messianic/religious figures) are above what can be predicted by statistics alone which makes this either a massive coinkydink or there is an identifiable cause for the correlation. The two obvious causes would be either they are the same person (unlikely but it has been proposed that Jesus travelled to India during his undocumented gap years between the end of his childhood and the beginning of his ministry) or the accounts of their lives and elevation to divinity are based upon a common and recurrent mythology that is prevalent in many (if not all) the worlds religions. On the other hand both Jesus and Krishna are often depicted with the same eye-colour as me, my father was a carpenter and I am a descendant of Charlemagne - coincidence?

For your information I’ve read the entire Bible, cover to cover; well over 30 years ago.  Since then I’ve only read a few passages here and there.  After first reading it in its entirety I thought it was total rubbish.  I now recognize it’s just too deep and mysteriously complicated for me and the human intellect to decipher.   To unravel the many mysteries it contains one needs to be somewhat enlightened.  But if one is enlightened there’s no need to read it.  How’s that for a catch 22?

Probably wrong on my part but I was viewing royalty as more of a lifestyle than a bloodline.   sh*t,  if I go back far enough maybe I’m of  royal descent.  Or most likely of a Gypsy clan,  given my many different nationalities.

In any case, I did not know that Jesus was of royal descent.  I learned something today..

HackettFan wrote: SteveG wrote: Convenient comparisons do more to hurt one's argument then to help them. Let's take this one for instance, without going through very many, off the top of my head, I can tell you that the main differences lie with the source of the comparisons. That Krishna was crucified is found only in a select Hindu oral tradition and not in the Hindu's authoritative text titled the Mahabharata, which also includes the philosophical treatise known as the Bhagavad Gita. Both of these texts would be comparable to the Christian Bible and it's text which focuses on Christ called the New Testament, and relates all of the Christ tales. I very much disagree with your idea that an oral tradition poses an unlikely source. You are presuming literary approach to mythological comparisons, that the mechanism of diffusion of mythological motifs arises through people directly reading and appropriating what they want to use from prior stories. I think rather that mythology is grounded in ritual, tradition, and religious practice of actual religions. It is more likely through gradual transmission of such tradition, ritual and religious practice that mythological motifs get diffused and indirectly appropriated. No comment though on your other points.

I did not say that it was an unlikely source, but an unreliable one. The Mahabharata is thousands of years old and oral traditions can be hundreds, if not thousands, of years newer. Christianity arrived in full force with the advent of the British colonization of India. Christian missionaries could have influenced the local oral traditions which resulted with these so called Krishna crucifixion and resurrection stories, with an attempt by locals to show a "my God did it first" agenda. Oral sources can also evolve over time and be corrupted.

Edited by SteveG - January 21 2017 at 09:28