Did the historical Jesus exist?

[Devils' Advocate]

Of course, because "we now know that narrative accounts of ourselves, our nation, the Western tradition, and the history of the world, are fictions." All of them. Every word of history is made up.

Thomas I understand the point of the sarcasm. Underneath that though, there is a cautionary tale. Much of history is indeed written from the viewpoint of the people who wrote it. Even if they are not intentionally distorting history, it happens unintentionally much more than any of us would like to concede.

I have seen history in the making from the grand to the bland. The history that I was a part of has changed over time. It certainly is not the way I remember it. Admittedly human memory is a very fallible thing, again very much more so than most of us would like to admit. And we are only talking some 50 years worth. So is it my memory that is wrong. Is recorded history wrong? Are both wrong?

Take that back 100 years, a thousand, ten thousand. The further back we go, the more careful we need to be about where the reality between the wide versions of a story might be. The more incredible the story, the more careful we have to be with the supposed history. JC as a man who riled up the natives? That's not so hard to accept, even though there is little actual evidence for the man.

JC as the son of an all powerful, all knowing God? Who we cannot prove exists even today? That is very, very difficult for me to accept. The lack of evidence versus one of the most incredible stories in human history. The gap is too wide to ever convince me with history.

But then even as someone as literal as me understands that that is not the point anyway. The story of the Christ is not meant to be proven one way of the other. Is what he taught relevant. Surely that is much more to the point?

 

[Thomas]

I always love the nuclear bomb approach...

I know! Seems to be the Seminar's forté.

Can you tell me where it is said 'all history is fiction'...

7th paragraph from the bottom ...

I mean I know much of history is fictionalized....it is based in some fact but embellished. Winners write the reports and all that...

Whoa! You bombing too? Way too much a generalisation for me.

Take our gospels...compare the stories Easter morning....which one is correct? They all differ...were soldiers there or not? Was an angel inside the tomb or outside? How many angels were there? Can someone write the story that makes all the gospel accounts agree?

Ah, one of the favourite skeptic arguments, a supposed no-win scenario: If the resurrection accounts all said the same thing, one can claim the authors conspired. When the accounts differ, one can claim that the contradictions mean they cannot be trusted.

It's another 'bomb' ... I would suggest reason and the middle way: On what do all the sources agree? That's your baseline, that's reliable. That's sound scholarship. Start working from that. Would one, three, five or fifteen angels make a difference? No. What matters is they said roughly the same thing, so we can know that there were a number of oral traditions around the one resurrection event.

 

[Thomas]

He did not believe in a personal God and believed that Jesus was merely a "great teacher".

That's enough for me!

 

[Thomas]

Thomas I understand the point of the sarcasm. Underneath that though, there is a cautionary tale. Much of history is indeed written from the viewpoint of the people who wrote it. Even if they are not intentionally distorting history, it happens unintentionally much more than any of us would like to concede.

I agree. So the historian has to proceed with great caution, and in making any claim, address all contrary claims reasonably, rationally and logically. Read the Westar commentary. I think my sarcasm reflects their risible statements.

JC as the son of an all powerful, all knowing God?

It was never going to be easy DA. Frankly I don't see what 'proof' would suffice, really? Even if we had scores of contemporary references.

The story of the Christ is not meant to be proven one way of the other.

Are you sure? I'm not being rude here, but do you think that because it doesn't matter to you, one way or the other?

To me it does, because there is every chance the story is just a fabric of naive fads, superstitions and delusions.

And then the story gets even further from whatever truth it might have contained, because it's re-shaped to suit the tastes and fashions of the day. In those days the idea of a Transcendent God really mattered. These days that's not the case. What really matters today is the self. So the narrative is rewritten, a new Gospel to announce the self-affirming 'God within'.

Is what he taught relevant. Surely that is much more to the point?

Not when one is claiming that history is so much fiction, that what we need to do is rewrite new and contemporary fiction to present history in a way that offers a teaching that reads better to us. The Westar Institute is following the same policy as 'The Ministry of Truth' a la Orwell's 1984.

 

[wil]

What matters is they said roughly the same thing, so we can know that there were a number of oral traditions around the one resurrection event.

We know there are a number of oral traditions

Now we are getting somewhere...isn't that exactly what we have been saying all along? Stories told around the campfire over decades (NT) or centuries (OT) tend to get embellished over time, quotes aren't quotes, events get hyperbolized to maintain interest, and eventually we don't know what happened we only know something happened.

 

[Thomas]

We know there are a number of oral traditions

Yes.

Now we are getting somewhere...isn't that exactly what we have been saying all along?

Yes. I don't see your problem? Whoever said otherwise?

Stories told around the campfire over decades (NT) ...

Hang on, what campfires? Where did campfires come from?

 

[wil]

at night, traveling nomads used campfires to keep warm, and to cook food. Folks often gathered around such fires and discussed topics of the day, philosophy and when they ran into others updated each other with the latest thought, and news from other towns...

but you knew that, so I don't understand your question.

 

[Thomas]

at night, traveling nomads used campfires to keep warm, and to cook food. Folks often gathered around such fires and discussed topics of the day, philosophy and when they ran into others updated each other with the latest thought, and news from other towns...

Quite. But that has nothing to do with the origins of the New Testament texts.

but you knew that, so I don't understand your question.

I'm just wondering where all this comes from ... sounds like you're spinning a tale of your own to me.

 

[wil]

I can't site references...it was decades ago I read about biblical origins, and how oral traditions survived...I have seen it again (not around campfires....well I do have some Jewish friends who like to discuss scripture around the fire) but my Indian/Hindi friends...they have oral traditions that they pass on to their kids...I learned this again...decades after reading about biblical texts and origins... It was also in a museum exhibit at the Smithsonian, where they brought in bibles borrowed from museums all over the world...they had some of the oldest bibles in existence, the oldest fragment of Mathew in existence, some of the dead sea scrolls, and a history of the bible...calling the new testament pieces of the gospels and pauls letters that were circulating the first books, (pamphlets really) that were created, carried and exchanged...(prior were scrolls, not bound folded paper)... It was quite interesting and substantiated my earlier reading.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Dang, nothing on TV again. Just a re-run of that old Thomas and W!l show.

 

[Thomas]

I can't site references...it was decades ago I read about biblical origins, and how oral traditions survived...

Maybe some elements of the OT, but not the New.

 

[Thomas]

But NJ's right ...

To recap, my position is:
1: One may well assert that truth is wrapped in fiction, but inventing further fictions won't get one closer to the truth.
2: Why, if a text is a fiction, pay it any credence?

 

[wil]

Now we don't believe the gospels were written by eyewitnesses nor the named...and we know they weren't written for decades after his death... doesn't that by definition make them oral traditions?

And you said you have no problem with the differing resurection morning stories...so wouldn't that imply that only one "may" be true, and the rest are fictionalized?

 

[Thomas]

Now we don't believe ...

Oh Wil, if we went on debating what you don't believe, We'd be here until the end of days.

And you said you have no problem with the differing resurection morning stories...so wouldn't that imply that only one "may" be true, and the rest are fictionalized?

LOL. Not at all. Are you saying the testimonies would have to agree in every detail to be considered true?

And would you then believe it, if they were? No, you wouldn't. So all this is by the by.

Back to my point:
1: The Seminar may well claim that 'all history is fiction' and 'What we need is a new fiction ... a new story ... a new narrative of Jesus, a new gospel, if you will, that places Jesus differently in the grand scheme, the epic story' but I say that's bollocks. Inventing new fictions won't get one closer to the truth. Quite the reverse.

2: Following the above, the Seminar founders on the point that if this 'fiction' thesis is accepted, then none of the New Testament can be regarded as anything more than stuff and nonsense. So why bother? (And the answer to that question, I fear, tells its own tale.)

 

[Ahanu]

I agree. So the historian has to proceed with great caution, and in making any claim, address all contrary claims reasonably, rationally and logically. Read the Westar commentary. I think my sarcasm reflects their risible statements.

Have you read Richard Carrier's "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb"? If so, what did you think?

 

[wil]

Oh Wil, if we went on debating what you don't believe, We'd be here until the end of days.

Well we'll be here to the end of our days anyway....odds are with none of these questions satisfactorily answered to either of us...as to the 'end of days' folks been waiting around for 2000 years with many in every generation positive it would happen in their lifetime...odds are high it won't happen in ours.

Beyond that, it isn't what I don't believe...it is what the scholars don't believe...mayhaps you can start a thread on the dates the gospels were written and their authors, without cherry picking?

Two things...It appears you think I am attached to, or worship the Jesus Seminar...not even close...I've perused two of their books, and you know much more, and are much more opinionated about them than I. From what I know they approached their study from a differing direction than most...a poll of theologians...I thought it interesting....

LOL. Not at all. Are you saying the testimonies would have to agree in every detail to be considered true?
none of the New Testament can be regarded as anything more than stuff and nonsense. So why bother? (And the answer to that question, I fear, tells its own tale.)

My answer, you know it...wouldn't affect me in the least...I bother, I share the stories, because they are good stories, and if folks embrace them, it will help them in their life, on this planet, right now....stuff and nonsense? Not even close.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

 

[wil]

Lol Namaste Jesus... That is always a laugh...you'll be struck by lightning for blasphemy....right... and look at all he's missed over the years from Atilla the Hun, to Hitler, Hirohito, Bush (God told me to free Iraq)...

Preacher was golfing....alone...because it often irritated him when he hit the ball wrong...7th tee right in the lake...dammit he says...the skies open and G!d says, "You are a man of the cloth, you know better, I've struck people down with lightning for less." 8th approach and he lands in the bunker, CRAP... Again G!d admonishes him, "I've been patient with you out here, last warning"....9th green he just missed an eagle, but gets on the green and misses a gimmee to get a birdee, he mutters under his breath again as he strokes and misses par...he curses...the clouds swirl and darken, lightning comes flying down and strikes the tree nearby splitting it in two... and out of the heavens...."Dammit, I missed!"

But before we get completely off tangent, this thread is not about the existence of G!d or the acts and words Jesus did or did not do....

It is about....was there actually a man called Jesus, that started this whole story?

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Lol Namaste Jesus... That is always a laugh...you'll be struck by lightning for blasphemy....right...

Ah, but you see, the lightning bolt in the photo does not represent the wrath of God as most would assume. It represents the scorn of man at the mere suggestion, God may not exist.

As you point out though, this thread is about the existence of Historical Jesus. True, but in matters of faith, what is true for the Father is also true for the Son and indeed the Holy Ghost.

We now return you to your regular scheduled program, England vs USA in the Lord's Test.

 

[Thomas]

Beyond that, it isn't what I don't believe...it is what the scholars don't believe...

What don't the scholars believe?