Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Jesus Historicity? Watch

    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Posters have already mentioned the existence and problems with the Josephus and Tacitus texts.

    The better evidence is circumstantial.

    Most (but not all) of the Pauline letters are considered to be by a single author and to be written circa 50AD by a person and to people who believed that they were the followers of an historic Jesus.

    If you had no other source than TSR conspiracy threads, would you believe that Princess Diana existed? You have a series of posters, probably none of whom ever met her, debating the cause of her death and what she stood for, about 16 years after she died. The threads include references to a cast of characters who are of unquestioned historic existence such as the Duke of Edinburgh. Do you think she and her death were real or do you think she was an entirely fictitious character?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)

    Most (but not all) of the Pauline letters are considered to be by a single author and to be written circa 50AD by a person and to people who believed that they were the followers of an historic Jesus.
    That's incorrect. Paul's Jesus is not historical.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    That's incorrect. Paul's Jesus is not historical.
    I do not understand what you are saying.

    There is no suggestion that Paul or his readers believed that these letters were about an allegorical or purely spiritual figure. They believed that letter was about a real flesh and blood individual and they believed it about 20 years after they believed He died.

    Their near contemporaneous belief in His existence is circumstantial evidence that He did in fact exist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    Is there any strong, certain evidence that Jesus existed? I hear different things everywhere.
    Of course not. If there was evidence to show for certain that he existed he'd be regarded and presented as a historical figure, not a biblical myth.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I do not understand what you are saying.

    There is no suggestion that Paul or his readers believed that these letters were about an allegorical or purely spiritual figure. They believed that letter was about a real flesh and blood individual and they believed it about 20 years after they believed He died.

    Their near contemporaneous belief in His existence is circumstantial evidence that He did in fact exist.
    Pauls' letters are mixed with the Catholic epistles, and some of their content have been purged of their blatant gnosticism where they match with Paul's other epistles. The pastorals, for example, portray Paul as an organiser of Church hierarchy, whilst the authentic epistles are peppered with Gnostic references such as teleoi meaning 'initiate'. Paul's Jesus is evidently not flesh-and-blood (Christ in you is a Gnostic teaching), he never even met Jesus nor did he go to Damascus; the Acts of the Apostles is an early second-century forgery. Paul is a steward of the mysteries, he is a Gnostic Jew who preaches gnosis and sophia, knowledge and wisdom. His Jesus is not historical.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think the most likely explanation is the Jesus of the Bible is an amalgamation of the story's of several prophets living in Judea around the 1st century additional drawing on already present pagan traditionsof gods and sons of gods. That would explain the contradictory elements of his character and actions.

    To a rational person it shouldn't matter if he was real or not. You should be about to learn from his ideas on morality and society whether he was as real as Caesar or as fake as the Easter Bunny.

    Ps: The idea Caesar was fabricated is ludicrous.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    Pauls' letters are mixed with the Catholic epistles, and some of their content have been purged of their blatant gnosticism where they match with Paul's other epistles. The pastorals, for example, portray Paul as an organiser of Church hierarchy, whilst the authentic epistles are peppered with Gnostic references such as teleoi meaning 'initiate'. Paul's Jesus is evidently not flesh-and-blood (Christ in you is a Gnostic teaching), he never even met Jesus nor did he go to Damascus; the Acts of the Apostles is an early second-century forgery. Paul is a steward of the mysteries, he is a Gnostic Jew who preaches gnosis and sophia, knowledge and wisdom. His Jesus is not historical.
    All of this is irrelevant.

    The fact that they are mixed with the catholic epistles has no bearing on the content of Paul's letters.

    We also not concerned with the pastoral epistles but solely with what are called the authentic epistles.

    It does not matter that Paul never met the incarnate Jesus (for these purposes one can ignore the road to Damascus) and is it does not matter whether Paul did or did not go to Damascus.

    We are not dealing with Acts though to talk of something as being a forgery which is a narrative of events written or assembled within a lifetime of those events is bizarre.

    Paul's preaching or doctrine is irrelevant.

    The only question we are considering is whether the author of Paul's letters and the recipients of those letters believed they were followers of someone who actually existed.

    Start with Romans 1:
    Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake. 6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.
    Did the man who wrote that believe, and did the people who originally received that believe that there was a living individual called Jesus Christ who was a descendant of King David?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AvocatDuDiable)
    Of course not. If there was evidence to show for certain that he existed he'd be regarded and presented as a historical figure, not a biblical myth.
    Although he could be a historical figure around whom myths have formed, which is my view (posted earlier)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    Although he could be a historical figure around whom myths have formed, which is my view (posted earlier)
    Well he could be, but he isn't, because there's not enough evidence to make him a historical figure. He's a mythological figure who did mythological things.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    All of this is irrelevant.

    The fact that they are mixed with the catholic epistles has no bearing on the content of Paul's letters.

    We also not concerned with the pastoral epistles but solely with what are called the authentic epistles.

    It does not matter that Paul never met the incarnate Jesus (for these purposes one can ignore the road to Damascus) and is it does not matter whether Paul did or did not go to Damascus.

    We are not dealing with Acts though to talk of something as being a forgery which is a narrative of events written or assembled within a lifetime of those events is bizarre.

    Paul's preaching or doctrine is irrelevant.

    The only question we are considering is whether the author of Paul's letters and the recipients of those letters believed they were followers of someone who actually existed.

    Start with Romans 1:


    Did the man who wrote that believe, and did the people who originally received that believe that there was a living individual called Jesus Christ who was a descendant of King David?
    It is very relevent because some of Paul's epistles were not written by Paul, they are known as "inauthentic" and Catholic. They preach Church hierarchy. Romans is not even a letter, it is more of a treatise. Besides, here is a Christian who lived in the first century (allegedly) and never met Jesus, yet proclaims a formiddable teaching of Christianity, that Christ died on the cross. Paul's Jesus is not historical, he never met Jesus, and it seems as if he knew more than the people he addressed his letters to anyway. In his letters it seems that the Churches couldn't agree on the teachings and there was in-fighting amongst them. So who was following an historical Jesus? No-one. He was not historical, at least not for them. This is why Paul preached illumination, the experience of Christ, of being Christ, of being circumcised in the spirit instead of the flesh. His letters were addressed to Pneumatic Christians, and in Romans he proclaims a gnostic teaching taken from the Gospel of Thomas:

    "As it is written, "Eye has not seen, nor has ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those who love him"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Am I correct in saying that Josephus's supposed account of Jesus is a forgery and even if it was real it was some sixth decades after the apparent events?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    Am I correct in saying that Josephus's supposed account of Jesus is a forgery and even if it was real it was some sixth decades after the apparent events?

    Forgery isn't the right word. Josephus has two references. As to one, it is quite likely that some or all of it was interpolated by a later Christian writer. As to the other, there is argument as to whether this is the right Jesus.

    You are also looking 60-70 years later.

    If you follow my earlier postings, Martyn* has made a lot of criticisms which do not get to grip with anything I say. He has repeated a lot of criticisms of entirely different points. Onde's final paragraph is a much better answer to my thesis than anything Martyn* has put. I wouldn't have used Fatima. I would have referred to the almost contemporary Angel of Mons, but the point is the same.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.