First day here. Hello! A bit of background on me.
I used to be a devout Catholic, but I realised that it had more to do with my love of tradition and history than it had about religion. You see, I'm mildly autistic (discovered only later in my life). This explains why, when I start to question something, I tend to dive into it, fully and deeply, trying to learn the origin and history behind it, and to explain why some things are what they are.
For example, I love social and linguistic anthropology, because it helps me to learn about civilization and cultural history, and why we do, say, and of course, believe in certain things. Naturally, I questioned religion, and particularly the bible, as historically sound. The way I see it, "writing" started back in Mesopotamia/Sumeria around 6,000 years ago — the same age as the Earth, according to creationists.
Coincidence? No. My take is that history started 6,000 years ago (that is, writing, and therefore recording history). This is where young Earth creationists conflate the two.
Anyway, when it comes to debates about the historical vs. the mythical Jesus, I've read quite extensively on the topic. I've read/seen/watched lectures by scholars and seminarians, listened to historians, followed the "Jesus Seminar," read Hitchens (and watched his many debates), read Richard Carrier's work, etc, etc, etc.
Ultimately, I am more on the side of Dr. Bart Ehrman, who says that Jesus was indeed a historical person, maybe just some ordinary guy, a zealot preacher (shit disturber) who was crucified much like other rabblerousers of the day (it was a daily occurrence back in Roman times).
The idea of Christianity started a few hundred years later, and was largely the work of Paul (Saul of Tarsus), the true founder of Christianity in my estimation. Jesus was simply an apocalyptic preacher, much like his mentor, John the Baptist, and whose teachings/preachings inspired the works of Paul.
What's your take?
Did Jesus really exist? Do you think there was such a guy? Why do you think so? I'm curious to see what others think.
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
13 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.PLINY - I don't believe Pliny directly mentions Jesus but the problems he is having with Christians as a group, but I could well be wrong on that matter.
Geoffrey51
Level 8
June 29, 2018
1
JOSEPHUS - In 'Antiquities' Josephus references the stoning of James and his relationship to the Jesus convicted by Pilate. This seems authentic in its context and accepted by most academics in this field.
The Testimony of Flavius, however, seems to have been written by another hand. Compare this text with another section in Antiquities and you will see for yourself that they are stylistically anomalous.
It is proposed that part,or most, of this section was constructed by Eusebius to give weight to the Jesus narrative.
Geoffrey51
Level 8
June 29, 2018
1
TACITUS - The problem I have here with Tacitus is that we don't have his sources. 'Annals' was written around 115, which is certainly after each of the gospels and countless other works on the subject. If these were his sources then, although a non- Christian work, this could be deemed circular referencing. Being as the incident reported is a very minor part of his Roman history, it seems likely that he wouldn't have dug too deeply but used the sources available.
Geoffrey51
Level 8
June 29, 2018
1
Inclined to agree with you in the most part there Michael. We know there were a lot of apocalyptic preachers in Romsn Judea and Herodian Gallilee. Probably several called Yeshua.
Christianity certainly existed in the mid C1st as shown by the dispute between James and Paul regarding Gentiles receiving the 'Good News'
I too support Ehrman's hypotheses regarding Jesus but I haven't visited his work for a while so I may take another look.
Geoffrey51
Level 8
June 29, 2018
1
I do believe in historical Jesus. I don't know what the real evidence for that is James the brother of Jesus.? and some people say they didn't even use the word Jesus back then? He was written about enough to be historically a person. I don't believe he was a deity incarnate. Recently I read the idea that God didn't want proof of his existence so that you would have to have faith, so doesn't that mean he has a disdain for intellectuals? No I've always said god if there was one wouldn't be afraid of the truth, the Earth is round there is about 3. 4 billion years old. The book Sapiens a brief history of humankind' by. Yuval Harari. Great book!
Charlietuna7
Level 5
June 29, 2018
1
I want to make it clear here that I do not endorse the claims made by christians that there is a god and that Jesus was his son and that Jesus was. therefore divine. I do believe however, that there is some evidence that a person existed who called himself Jesus and probably called himself Christ the son of god. Both Jewish and Roman historians record references to Jesus Christ the so called son of god, Flavius Josephus in AD93 makes 2 references and also Pliny and Tacitus 20 years later. Acknowledging that he existed does not in any way mean that I believe the claims he made. I am a lifelong disbeliever.
Marionville
Level 10
June 29, 2018
1
Welcome!!
I don't know one way or the other if he actually existed or not.
I suspect that there may have been some guy, possibly named Jesus, and that he preached in some form or other. I wouldn't rely on any of the (later) texts to be anything more than hearsay or anecdotal.
His parentage is really the point that I have issues with.
scurry
Level 9
June 29, 2018
1
Welcome.
I think you are probably correct about the foundation of Christianity. As for me, I think Jesus was a smart, gutsy guy in some ways and I agree with a lot of what he taught, but I am definitely not a Christian in the way taught by traditional churches.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
June 29, 2018
1
Most preachers of the day seen as rabblerousers were indeed gutsy.
Welcome Michel, it takes a lot of guts to walk away from the Catholic Church so well done! My grandfather left the Catholic Church and became a freethinker and raised my father to think for himself. In turn my father brought my brother and me up the same way. I am so grateful to both of them as I have never experienced the curse of dogma personally. I think there is enough evidence to indicate that someone called Jesus did exist, but he was entirely human and not divine. Hope you enjoy our lively discussions.
Marionville
Level 10
June 29, 2018
1
In my opinion the only evidence that exist is the bible (which is not evidence but a claim) and some obscure mentioning in a couple of historical writings and they are questionable.
Yes, I agree. Erhman’s hypothesis is backed up with a lot of sound logic and I like his work.
My father was a choir boy and then a “brother” and church deacon. Was heavy into the Knights of Columbus and his church. So I was born into it. Sadly.
Glad to chat here.
@jlynn37 I have extensively researched for facts and there are contemporaneous accounts by Jewish chroniclers. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in AD 93 drew on these accounts and made reference to Jesus as do Pliny and Tacitus 20 years later.
@Marionville and those are the very obscure mentionings in a couple of historical writings I refer too and they are questionable. You believe your sources and I will believe mine. No problem there.
@jlynn37 That’s fine with me. I never would say I definitely believe he existed, only that there seems to be some evidence. As I’ve said elsewhere here today, doubt is good!
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.