by VorJack
“Jesus wasn’t Christian!”
That’s becoming a common refrain, particularly among the Liberal Christians. The point is that the historical Jesus is only tenuously connected to the church that bears his name. After his death, the members of his movement began to practice a religion about Jesus, rather than the religion of Jesus. That means that the Christianity practiced today bears little resemblance to the actual message of the historical Jesus.
I basically agree with this idea. If nothing else, it should be noted that from Paul on, orthodox Christians have believed that Jesus’ death was of absolute importance. It’s hard to imagine any prophet delivering a message where his own death is of primary importance. “Repent and your sins will be forgiven! But hold off on that, I’ve got to get executed first. Give it a week.”
You’ve been given a check for salvation, but you’ve been asked not to cash it until next Tuesday. Even if such a person existed, it’s hard to imagine them ever finding any followers.
Historical Who?
Pullquote: I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.
My problems begin with what normally comes next. If Jesus wasn’t Christian, what was he? Well, Jewish, obviously, but more than that. Jesus was revolutionary, he was a radical, he was anti-religion. This is where I start to choke.
Let me be clear that I don’t have any great love of institutional religion – nor any great disdain – and I have no problem with people who want to be “spiritual but not religious.” My problem is strictly a historical one. Put bluntly: everything we know about Jesus comes from religious sources. We have no record of Jesus’ message outside of the sectarian Christan sources. As a result, you cannot separate Jesus from Christianity.
I think it’s a mistake to believe that you can read the gospels and intuitively discover the “real” Jesus. Thomas Jefferson believed he could scrape away the legendary accretions and discover the real teachings of Jesus standing out “like diamonds in a dung hill.” Modern historians find that attitude laughable.
The gospels are loaded with theological parables, creative retellings of Jewish scriptures and proxy wars between competing sects of early Christianity. They are religious works and liturgical works that served a function other then sober history — a genre that didn’t really exist at the time they were written. There remain sticky problems of translation and textual interpretation.
Unknown Knowns and Known Unknowns
Pullquote: But the quest is not about restoration. It is a task of ancient history and when understood as ancient history, discussion about the historical Jesus should constantly involve the reminder that massive amounts of key data must be missing.
When competent historians of the period go after the gospels with the tools of critical history, the results are … not much. If you ignore the entrenched controversies and focus in on the closest thing we have to consensus, there are only a few dozen sayings that we can point to and say, “these might have come from Jesus.”
Might have. Not definitely. There’s alway a chance that any section might be a mis-attributed quote or a teaching that was revealed to a follower by the resurrected Jesus. And this is what we’re left with to try and reconstruct Jesus’ teaching. We might be able to construct a shell of Jesus’ life, but we have to accept that anything we produce is highly speculative. There will always by many other competing theories that remain quite plausible.
As for creating a full biography and recovering the major points of his teachings with any degree of confidence? I think not.
And of course, there’s the sticky issue of what the gospels failed to record. As Marc Goodacre pointed out in his essay Admitting our Ignorance about the Historical Jesus, there are significant gaps in what we know of Jesus.
Our knowledge about the historical Jesus is always and inevitably partial. If we take the quest of the historical Jesus seriously as an aspect of ancient history, we have to admit that many of the key pieces must be missing.
And so we find ourselves trying to solve a dot-to-dot puzzle where most of the dots and missing, and some of the dots we have may not be original. What picture we draw out of this puzzle will likely tell us more about what we were hoping to find than it will tell us about the actual image it was meant to present.
We acknowledge that the early Christians diverged from the teachings of Jesus and went in their own direction. But these are the same people who wrote the gospels that are our only source of knowledge, and they wrote these gospels for their own purposes rather than ours. We are forever forced to view Jesus through the eyes of the early Church and its various factions. And so, we have to conclude that Christianity created the Jesus we see.
If you want to construct an image of Jesus that you find elevating and follow after it, that’s one thing. But please don’t pretend that you’ve found the “real Jesus.”
Great post, vorjack! Really interesting.
Insightful and well written.
No doubt many Christians would counter with their claim of having a “personal relationship” with Jesus, implying a direct connection that bypasses the limitations you outline. Having been a Christian for a number of years and associating with a number of denominations, I have seen no evidence of any special knowledge of what Jesus taught or believed outside that which is presented in the Bible. That “special relationship” is an emotional response to the Jesus of the Bible, about as special as claiming a special relationship with Michael Jordan because you’re a fan.
You illustrate an uncomfortable truth for Christians, that what they know about the object of their faith is incomplete and biased. Their source of information is a collection of essays of dubious accuracy cobbled together 300 years after the main character died. To the skeptical and critical thinker this introduces a huge measure of doubt in the accuracy of the stories being told.
Great post Vorjack!
When forced to be in a “convert the atheist” conversation, I am always asked “did you really KNOW jesus?” Well of course I did. I know just as much information on the man that is presented to all his ‘followers’. Which the response to that is always, “well then you didn’t know the REAL jesus, because if you did then you would still worship him.” –Because you do know the real jesus? Oh please, do explain the “real jesus” to me dear sweet judgemental christian.
Perhaps you could explain the No True Scotsman fallacy to them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rN9Ovmg82I
It always leaves me shaking my head that xtrianity continues to exist considering that nothing about it withstands the merest scrutiny.
No part of the “bible” can be dated to any earlier than 100 or so years after Jeebus supposedly lived and died. Then you have all the futzing and politics surrounding what writings to actually include in the bible and the incessantly copying monks and their own personal and political motivations.
I’m intrigued by the possibility that there may have been more than one man named Yeshua or something similar living in the same time frame, and that several rebels and preachers may have been combined or confused to produce the persona of the New Testament Jesus. Think of all the stories you’ve heard about Jesse James or George Washington. Many of the events came from someone else’s life, or are simply tropes. Can anyone recommend any sources for further study?
There are a lot of interesting points to study. I’m looking at the historicity of Jesus for an open-source book I’m writing, and a couple of the most interesting points are:
1. A lot of the credible secular sources for a historical Jesus refer to him in different ways. Yeshu ben Pandera is an interesting figure, and worth a look.
2. Much of what Josephius wrote on the matter was interpolated and edited later. There is much to suggest that he did not accept that Jesus was the son of God.
3. Look at the betrayal of Jesus in the garden at Gethsemane. The soldiers tell Jesus “We’re looking for Jesus.” before Judas comes forward to kiss Jesus, identifying him. You can reasonably infer from this that Jesus was not known by face in Jerusalem. Given the miracles he’s said to have performed in the region & the fact that he allegedly entered Jerusalem in prophecy-fulfilling mode on the back of a donkey, whilst crowds sang Psalms in his honour, you have to find that hard to believe. None of the pharisees knew who he was? Sure.
4. A lot of what Jesus said is silly, for a few reasons. Here’s an excerpt from my book:
Here I turn to you. Is there any single thing in the Bible which you consider a revelation beyond the realm of human knowledge? Does the God of the Bible at any stage introduce fresh and new knowledge to the world? The answer has escaped me if he does. Or perhaps you would claim that the notion of everlasting life, and the offer of personal redemption from sin is a novel revelation? I would argue, like Hitchens, that it is thoroughly immoral. McDowell tackles revelation in Evidence:
Jesus said about his own words, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away” (Luke 21:33). It was common for the crowds who heard Him to be “astonished at His teaching” (Luke 4:32). Even a Roman officer exclaimed, “No one ever spoke like this Man!” (John 7:46).
Clearly the teachings documented in Luke 4:32 and John 7:46 must be profound, then. Note, however, that McDowell does not make a demonstration of God’s revelation through the words he says, but rather the response to the words he says. You would certainly expect the most profound words ever spoken to be self-evidently great. Here is Luke 4:31-32:
And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power.
What a great pity that the message of God, so profound that it astonished an entire crowd of people at Capernaum, was not recorded. Clearly it was so profound that it struck the author of Luke dumb! A pity, too, that none of the Romans who would presumably have heard about the astonishing message thought to write it down. It’s almost as if it never happened. And what of John 7:46? What prompts the Roman officers to such praise of the son of God? What was so profound? Here is what Jesus said:
Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.
Is this it? Is this the self-evident demonstration of the power of god through human speech? This is the best he could do? It’s worth noting that whilst the Roman officers say that “Never man spake like this man” (a statement one might consider to be open to interpretation, given that Jesus was nothing if not controversial), John 7 repeatedly makes reference to the fact that Jesus infuriated large portions of the crowd. Verse 1 claims that “the Jews sought to kill him,” verse 30 claims “Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come,” and finally verses 43-44 state, “So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.” Are we really to believe that the evidence McDowell boldly declares is in support of the majesty of God in human form actually caused division in the people who heard it?
McDowell also cites Joseph Parker, an English nonconformist, most famous for the profoundly trite “Only Christ could have conceived Christ” quote. McDowell wisely opts for a different statement:
After reading the doctrines of Plato, Socrates or Aristotle, we feel the specific difference between their words and Christ’s is the difference between an inquiry and a revelation.
Again, this speaks to a message which is not self-evidently divine. McDowell must resort to annotating the response to the message, rather than the message itself. However, it is possible to make a sport of comparing the alleged profundities of Jesus with those of Plato, and their lives in general, for we are fortunate to know a great deal about Plato’s historicity.
[...]
We can see from this table the extraordinary stupidity of Parker’s statement. Parker claims that Plato’s ‘doctrines’ come as the result of inquiry, not revelation. Jesus’s, however, come from the latter and not the former. What would Jesus have to teach from inquiry? We know nothing of his education, he had no instructors to speak of, he never traveled or saw the world. The only thing he could have instructed on would have been the Mosaic law he picked up in temple, and this is by and large what he did.
Plato, on the other hand, was a polymath of whom there is a vast amount of corroborative evidence from many different disciplines. His writing and works form the bedrock of modern philosophy, and whilst he is not without his detractors, he is still considered to be an influential figure in many different circles: notably metaphysics, politics, philosophy and language. Parker rightly points out that his works do not point to revelation, but to inquiry. But what is the relevance of this passage? Parker means to claim that the sum total of Jesus’s teachings is more profound than Plato’s, and that a reason for this is because it is divine revelation, rather than human inquiry. The statements Jesus makes are not in the least part a revelation. Consider Matthew 22:37-40.
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
This was hardly a revelation when Moses first ‘heard’ it, let alone when it is recycled by Jesus. Matthew 7:12 makes slightly more interesting reading.
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
This passage is frequently claimed by Christians as a victory for Biblical innovation and Divine wisdom. It is the ‘golden rule’ of humanity: treat other people how you would want to be treated. The rule is, in my view, silver at best. Surely a better rule would be ‘don’t do to others what you wouldn’t wish done to yourself.’ I wouldn’t wish to have my genitals taken to with sharpened instruments at birth, for example, but a Jew may feel altogether differently about that. I wouldn’t wish to be prayed for (simply because it is demonstrably the most pathetic waste of time), but you might like to be prayed for. The view is not one of reciprocation as it is so often claimed to be, but one of interference. It is a good idea, but not the best. In any case, it transcends all religions. Ethics of reciprocation are present in almost all major religions and philosophies, it is not unique to the Bible. RB Parkinson translates the oldest written record of the golden rule from Egypt, around 4,000 years ago–2000 BCE.
Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.
Of course, as we are discussing Plato, it must be said that he also hit upon the golden rule hundreds of years before Jesus. In The Laws, he wrote:
May I be of a sound mind, and do to others as I would that they should do to me.
It is my challenge to Christians to present some sort of divine inspiration in the Bible that self-evidently could only come from one who is timeless and all-knowing. I believe they have all their work ahead of them in doing so.
Christ said “you search the scriptures that you may find eternal life (this is a kind & quality of life, His in the here and now John later saying “this is (the meaning of) eternal life that you know the Father & the Son”) but you refuse to come unto me that I may give it to you”. You are making the same mistake the Pharisee’s did by attempting to prove or invalidate anything based on mere words. The spiritiual man does not “live” from scripture but from the Life of Another within himself in the same way that Christ said “as I live “from” my Father’s life so will you live “from” my life in you” (paraphrased).
1 John 2 says “The life (His uncreated, eternal kind and quality of life, that eternal life) is made manifest in them that believe”. When asked what the “work of God is that we may do it” by his disciples JC answered them saying “this is the work of God, that you believe”. So my friend, while I appreciate your position and sincere question you are unfortunately approaching it as if it were an academic exercise or a matter of logic but this method is most unprofitable when it comes to spiritual insight. One of the consequences of the fall of man was the inversion of his nature. Prior to the fall the spiritual aspect of man’s being was his dominant nature but the fall “lowered” him into the realm of the flesh and his inner man (spiritual aspect) receded far into his being, so far that many today are unaware of its presence and so in denial of it until they be “quickened” or regenerated.
You are not the only one who approaches this “Christ” from this perspective, even many professing believers make a mere mental ascent and so have never “pierced the veil” of their flesh and experienced the deeper, soul satisfying things of the spirit realm where is light & life.
So in summary, I honor you, your inquiry and observations but the things of God are literally reserved for them that (foolishly, childishly, trustingly) believe.
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and all the very best to you on your journey.
Circles! There is NOTHING but the written word, else nothing would have been said or continue to be said about Jesus without those texts! And you decry the examination of them? Instead…..what? Stand in a field and wait for Jesus to whack you on the head from above? Oh, wait, we only know of him from the texts, so how do we know to wait for him; but we aren’t to read them for the purpose of knowing him. Then what – sleep with them under our pillow? I have read and read and read your posts, and you have made your point clear, but it is senseless, I’m sorry to say. And I am fairly nonconfrontational – but stop repeating yourself!!!
So let me get this straight:
1. To decide whether or not Christianity is a worthwhile belief, we look at the accuracy of the Bible.
2. You say that we can’t do that because it says so in the Bible.
Sorry, but you’re an idiot. I’m tolerant of people, but not idiots.
The challenge still stands, BTW. The Bible is allegedly the work of THE DIVINE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE. Show me one thing in it that could ONLY have been said by God and not a human. Or if you can’t do that, show me one passage where some new information or knowledge is imparted from Jesus.
I am not the One who “shows” you anything friend. Neither in your current state (calling people idiots, etc) are you able to receive anything of the higher Life since you are currently caught in a petty, cynical and critical mindset.
You are writing a book about a Person that you (currently) know nothing about as evidenced by your own words. If you really want to know (and you can) then you will have to know in the very way in which He says that you can know. Christ is not an historical figure in the way you imagine, if you imagine him at all.
He does not empower the prideful (this is one of the reasons he often spoke in parables) and so for the time being you will not “see” or hear until you are willing to humble yourself, to be empty of you, all your pre-conceived notions and idea’s about Him and who He is. He regards the proud from afar, but is near to the humble in heart. When we are full of ourselves, we are empty of Him, can not know him in truth.
If you really and truly want to know then humble yourself, empty yourself of yourself, be lowly of heart and in your own eyes and estimation. Then in that (low) place you will hear more than you have ever heard before, you will hear him for yourself. Your eyes will be opened, you will see and hear correctly.
Happy Holidays, all the very best.
I’m sorry, but happy fluffy warm feelings do not make something relevant or true. You can claim to “know” Jesus but how do you know him anymore than a muslim knows Allah? Hell, the feeling of connection with god and knowing a personal revelation is the foundation of every single cult in the world. Do you think the hale boppers would have killed themselves if they didn’t feel a deep and personal connection to god? They too sincerely believed in their special revelation from god? How is your special revelation any different?
Additionally, your interpretation of the message of Jesus is vastly different from the whole history of christian thought. Why do you know the truth? Torquemada was just as convinced as you are that he had found the true heart of god. Was he right?
You claim humility while all others are arrogant around you. You are the only one claiming to know the heart of god. You do act out of pride. You dress your pride up in a fancy dress and call it god. Isn’t it amazing though how much god thinks exactly like you do. By pretending it is god speaking and not yourself then you are able to make broad pronouncements about the nature of the universe and how everything really is.
I have known many like you. Those who want to be wise, want to appear to have all the answers. Too much of your rhetoric is fluff and nonsense though. Humble yourself and be filled with god? This means nothing. How would one humble oneself before god? Millions of christians have debased themselves before god and his representatives. Millions have given their lives in his name. Millions have subsumed their will committing acts that no sane man would do simply because god willed it. Are you more humble than they? Why didn’t they get this message? When god speaks only to one person then that person isn’t a prophet, they are making shit up. Your happy fluffy god that loves everybody is insulting to the intelligence of any rational person. You are nothing but another new age crystal gazer who claims the great universal energy will save all of man kind. Please, travel to the Sudan and tell me where you omnibenevolent god is.
D’n, so who is more prideful, arrogant as you say? Myself who surrenders to Him, His words and life-portending ways or you who opposes Him (ignorantly in the true sense of the word meaning innocently, ie “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” kind of innocence) Man is the image of God, this is how it was in the book of beginnings (Genesis) and how it is in the NT (see Christ being the “exact” representation of the Father and saying “when you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father, etc). Man is the intended dwelling place, “temple” of God who is Spirit. I could reference verse after verse for you but you wont “hear it”. JC saying “him who has ears to hear, let him hear what the spirit (God) says” because you see Him (or not all) thru a religious lens which is cloudy and severely distorted. You are not alone in this.
As to your Sudan reference; the terrible evils, despair and suffering we witness in this (fallen) world is a direct consequence of man’s “going out” from the Father (ie the prodigal son story which is really contrasting adam vs Christ) and “demanding his own way”. So after generations of opposition to God (and to our true selves) we end up with “famines” both literally and spiritually speaking. We see this pattern repeated throughout the OT, ie sin (rebellion against God) resulting in exile (from the garden initially, from the presence of God resulting in the placing of ourselves under other, oppressive gods, rulers, etc which is merely the “prince of this world, ie Satan who this world is “captive to” and whom Christ “came to set the captives, us free from) and then a merciful restoration. So it goes Sin, Exile and Restoration, thats the recurring theme of the OT.
If you were current on the happenings in Africa, you woud know of what is called “empirical lift” which numerous nations, tribes, etc are currently experiencing there who have seen the wisdom of serving the one, true and living God with the natural consequence/result being a “lifting” of the quality of their lives, nation, etc and coming “out” from under years of oppressive rulers, dictators, etc. This why JC began his ministry saying repent (metanoa in the greek) meaning “to have a new mind, to think differently” about ourselves and God, our identities as sons of God, who He is, His heart for us, etc.
This is why its called “the good news” but you wont believe. It only becomes “good news’ one the Truth (Himself) is rec’d, believed for “as many as received Him he gave the right to become sons of God (I would add…’again” as it was in the beginning). Jn 1:12&13.
Religion sucks, is what you guys rebel against but Christ is anything but religious, He is love and liberty. All the best D’n, I appreciate you, your willingness to share though in opposition, and your journey.
“who is more prideful, arrogant as you say?”
You are arrogant for assuming its existence and that it speaks to you so clearly.
Sunny Day you know that anyone as delusional as John C is, doesn’t understand what it really means to be arrogant. Anyone that has convinced themselves that they are a messenger for some other being will only see their views as truth and so is a waste of time trying to make them understand it.
@ John C.
Here you go with the pseudo wisdom crap again. “His words and life-portending ways” That is just utter tripe. You are simply trying to sound all mystical and above the rest of us unenlightened rabble.
Let’s take away your fluffy language. So who is more wise, one who believes or one who doesn’t believe. I will tell you who is more wise, the one who follows evidence, logic, and reason, to come to a sound conclusion. It doesn’t matter that Jesus claims to have life. That is a logical fallacy. You are saying that because the consequences of Jesus being real, i.e. eternal life and all that rot, are good. Because they are good Jesus must be real. The consequences of assertion have no bearing on the truth of that assertion. Just because it makes you happy to believe in Jesus does not make him real. It makes my son happy to believe in Santa Claus but that doesn’t make Santa suddenly real.
Is man in the image of god or is god in the image of man? We know that men wrote the bible. Even the most hard core believer in a divinely inspired bible doesn’t argue that it was anything but human fingers holding the pen that first wrote down those stories. Why is it so hard to believe that someone simply made up the bible? If the bible was made up, then its god is likewise made up. Until some form of evidence can be brought forth the logical, rational, and wise conclusion is that the bible is just as false as every other fable, myth, and fairy tale. Sure there is insight in the bible, but that is because there are people who were really intelligent and insightful in the past. Socrates was likewise insightful and intelligent. No one claims he was divinely inspired.
Your entire argument in the first paragraph makes the presupposition that god is real and that you have special insight into his nature and designs. Without some reasoning behind your special insight it is nothing but your own personal opinions. Of course you can use the bible to back up your opinions. Not even considering the fact that there is no reason why we should give it special importance, I can bring up just as many bible verses to go against your points. Of course in that case I’m sure you are the one who would refuse to “hear”. Or is hearing the spirit of god now defined as agreeing with your position. Sadly this is what every spiritualist has said throughout time.
Funny, it seems that google also has never heard of “empirical lift”. I’m pretty sure though I can debunk your hypothesis quite readily. Let’s see..
1. Christianity has been in Africa ever since the year 43 AD. So it’s not exactly a new development.
2. African christians aren’t exactly what I would call civilized and peaceful. For the most part they murder witches, commit the same genocides, and mutilate women; just to name a few.
3. When countries become peaceful it is because they have strong governments and stable economies (monetary, material, and agricultural to name a few).
4. The most peaceful places in Africa are not christian, but are rather islamic. So why are those places peaceful? They aren’t filled with the spirit of god.
5. Finally, it has been shown, over and over again, that the more religious an area, the more criminal it is. Likely though this is actually a product of education. The more educated an area is the more peaceful it is. Additionally education diminishes religious convictions. Of course that is simply my hypothesis as I don’t claim divine inspiration.
Jesus, and the message of the bible, are only good news if they are true. Until you prove the assertion of the messages truth it is not good.
What I am opposed to is people who have it all figured out. No one has it all figured out, no one knows the mind of god. Any who claim to are arrogant beyond belief. You claim to know the creator and sustainer of the entire cosmos and to receive instruction directly from him. That is a bold and powerful claim. Too bad you can’t back it up with anything except fluffy feel good new age poppycock.
D’n…when did I ever say that I know all the mind of God? I think in your earnest desire to debate (which I have zero interest in) you have taken some liberties there my friend. As for my “claims” of knowing I only claim to know the very things He said we could know, do you have any idea what those “things” are?
Divine “inspiration” is a natural consequence of union life, is as natural as breathing is. He said (to them that believe and go on to maturity which paradoxically means less of themselves and more of Him) that “I will be in you and you will be in me”. The less of me I insist on, the more of my (inherited, adamic) life that I crucify or let go of, the more of Him, His Life I receive in return. This is the meaning of JC’s words “if a man seeks to save his own life he will lose it, but if he loses it for my sakes he will find it”. This is more closely tied to what I call the “True Offer” which even most believers (who are primarily interested in being “saved” as opposed to intimately knowing Him in union life) do not yet know about for it is not “taught” in “church” since there are so few “Fathers in the faith” who have experienced it for themselves.
Religion is a terrible bondage since it demands from those enslaved to its hideous lie a thing from them which it is impossible for them to give in return, namely a transformed nature. Only Christ (until Christ be formed in you, Galatians 4.19) can accomplish such a metamorphosis with the True Offer, ie His life for ours. (Gal 2.20).
You’re still associating Christ with religion, I realize its a hard association to break, but nothing could be further from the Truth (Himself) than the religious types and externalities we see in todays culture and throughout history. He does not dwell in temples made with human hands as Paul revelates.
I have no desire to sound more “enlightened” as you say although I’m sure my words may sound quite strange to you at times, I can certainly appreciate that. Unlike the religionists or fundamentalists I have no need for you to agree with me as you state, I am merely offering my unique and disparate viewpoint and life experience to you for your consideration. I am speaking to you truthfully, experientially.
All the very best D’n.
If you believe John C, you are a christian and who can deny you!
I’m not looking for anything “spiritual.” My brain apparently doesn’t make those chemicals.
Thanks. I didn’t have to go any further than the wikipedia entry on ‘Yeshu’ and read about the etymology of the name/term before the possibility that the NT Jesus was a real person utterly crumbled. If some Jewish or Roman document emerges that establishes Jesus’ existence, I might be convinced, but I’m not holding my breath.
John, let me say that I’m a Christian. Actually about to be a pastor…But it always blows my mind when fellow Christians quote scripture to non-believers who don’t believe the Bible is authoritative or true. That’s ironic, eh? It’s like defining a word by using the same word in the definition.
That said, most of your interlocutors on this page are really naive in what they know to be so sure and certain. I suppose I can understand agnostics. There’s humility in that. But folks who spout scientific empiricism and enlightenment philosophies as if we (from the 1700s—present) are so fortunate to have FINALLY discovered the REAL TRUTH. As if we stand on silly faith as opposed to their stance upon the bedrock of materialism.
So “atheist” folks recognize the naivety in pretending you don’t exercise great faith, if only in a very different department. And I encourage prideful Christians to chew on a big piece of humble pie, as well. None of us have it ALL FIGURED OUT.
You have seen but one slither of all my comments here dear one. The spiritual life is not like the scholarly, academic one, in fact they are bitterly opposed. You are setting out on a journey, a ‘pastoring’ and will be encouraging others to follow along with you I suppose, to ‘follow you’, no?. So let me ask you a question please, simply put, what is the gospel message? Thanks.
“‘atheist’ folks recognize the naivety in pretending you don’t exercise great faith”
I don’t see how NOT believing in something that someone else made up is exercising faith. But I guess since many Christians think that Atheism and Science are religions that it makes sense.
I’m not sure that a large majority of Atheists think they have it “all figured out”. I sure don’t. That’s why I come to this site (and others) to try and learn.
“You don’t know everything, either!” is the battle cry of the pridefully ignorant.
I have always been bothered by the simple fact that there is no credible evidence outside of biased religious sources(the bible and one or 2 short passages from the historian Josephus even later than early christian writings around 300AD) for Jesus even existing. That and the fact that the origin stories of Jesus are so similar or in fact exactly the same as another half-dozen or more ‘sons’ of god from at least as many different mythos that existed at the same time they early christians were writing their book. Anyway good article.
Researching the historicity of the Bible (both personally and as a Comparative Religion major in college) was what really got me started on my path to atheism. Once I started throwing things out (biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth, issues with chronology or interpretation), it was hard to figure out where to stop. I straddled the fence for a little while and tried to be a “liberal” or “progressive” Christian, but I finally had to come to the conclusion that, if it doesn’t make sense, I can’t keep believing in it. It wasn’t so much that I made one huge decision to step out of my faith; it was more like I kept chipping pieces of it away until there was nothing left.
“But these are the same people who wrote the gospels ………. ”
Aren’t Christians told / taught that the gospels are umm ok, written by man, but yes are indeed God’s word spoken through these men? How does that work anyhow?
If the all powerful God wrote things that don’t make sense then he must have wanted his people to have limited understanding. You see, he actually wants to keep the real history of Jesus from us for a reason.
Seems silly to me, but hey, just say “God’s word” and you have a magical escape hatch to any thinking.
Oh come on. You don’t have any disdain for Christianity? ;) Ok. Right.
What do you mean “the real Jesus”? There was only one Jesus. He was real. Therefore I believe in the real Jesus– and yes, I have found the real Jesus. His character is very simple: love. Hence I have found the REAL meaning of love— Jesus; and the real meaning of Jesus–love. No matter how hard you try to complicate this very simple idea, it will remain simple, immutable, and unchangeable. There is nothing you can do to change it.
If you want to construct an image of atheism that you find elevating and follow after it, that’s one thing. But please don’t pretend that you’ve got the corner market on reason. My belief in “the real Jesus,” the one who said “love God and love your neighbor,” is every bit as sound as your belief in the “real” unreasonablefaith.com.
Citations, please.
…not gonna hold my breath on a response from “Dino.”
That’s interesting Mr. Flintstone; and would that be the same fellow who (allegedly) said this:
ORLY? That’s an enormous assertion, Mr. Flintstone. Kindly prove it to this one atheist. I’m sure I’d love to hear the evidence. After all, I tried to believe this elusive truth for a long time, without success.
Elusive bugger, isn’t he? Slipped right out of my radars, in the days I cried and prayed and tried so hard to believe.
So love has no meaning if there isn’t a Jesus? That’s… pretty sad, really. I musn’t really love my mother and my sister, then; after all, I have not found your elusive savior. This love must be an illusion, a trick. It’s by no means real. After all, you know the real love, don’t you?
I’d say nothing is unchangeable or immutable, but I know how much you godbotherers like stability and sameness so I won’t bother (except I already did. Oh dear!).
OK then. Kindly show me that Jesus. Surely he isn’t hiding in Scripture; those are hardly about love, much as dear metalcynic pointed out.
Excuse me, I’m not an atheist, but a deist. However, let me say briefly, ALL RELIGIONS LIE. They prey on those who are fearful by creating the “Big Daddy in the Sky” and exposing their fearful subjects to the wrath of disappointing their “Big Daddy’”. And… who are the fearful believers?? ALL those who fear the only KNOWN reality in life – DEATH!! Think about it – It’s true. People are afraid to die without a belief system, because they are pussies of death.
Another fact that I can’t understand about the religious “faithful”, is their irrational belief that their god (or any god) is the only true god, who, for whatever reason, has selected them over all other non believers to be his favorites. Again, can anyone, again, in their right, rational mind, believe in a god who is a bigot? Come on, all you bible thumpers!! Wake up!! Be a humane, living being who shows love, understanding, and compassion to his fellow man – not for the sake of a god, but, for the sake of humanity.
People are afraid to die without a belief system, because they are pussies of death.
Can someone check and see if there’s a metal band called “Pussies of Death”? If not, I’d like to reserve the name.
More awesome if it’s an all girl band.
If the name is already taken, you can always use “Death Pussies”.
Excellent discussion — especially on the eve of the “Savior’s birth”! :-)
We at notjesusfault.com really appreciate VorJack’s thoughtful response. And on the whole, we agree…
There is very little “historical” insight into who Jesus-the-real-person was, although believers and non-believers alike are fond of citing Josephus as tangential verification of Jesus’ existence. And yes, anything written about any person has an inherent bias — there is no true “objectivity” in recording past events, since they’re transmitted from a human perspective with inseparable biases and agendas.
So yes, we’re in agreement that the gospels (as well as apocryphal texts like the Gospel of Thomas) really serve one — some may say “propagandistic” — purpose: to extol this “Jesus” figure in a special way.
So, back to the chicken-and-egg discussion…. For the most part, few people would actually (or could credibly) argue with absolute certainty that no “Joshua ben Joseph”/”Jesus” ever existed as a historical person in first-century Palestine. That is, “Jesus” isn’t a completely straw-figure — whatever distortions may have occurred, the gospel depictions are based on the existence of a real-life person. (It seems like an even more difficult burden of proof to say that Jesus never existed!)
So what did the Church do to this first-century man, whoever he was? In short, they made him God.
That much can be traced fairly easily — not just from the evolution of the gospels (the dramatic change from Mark’s rough-and-ready imperfect Greek to John’s overly polished, ready-mixed theology), but through the Church councils that progressively deified and dogmatized.
The Jesus Seminar — a group of scripture scholars representing a wide range of Christian perspectives — acknowledged several years ago that a real “Jesus” probably didn’t actually speak the majority of quotes attributed to him in the gospels — that the faith communities thought they would “enhance” the story for their own purposes by adding non-historical flourishes. In other words, we really don’t know much about what this guy actually said or did.
So back to the initial discussion: You’re absolutely correct, VorJack — Jesus and Christianity are inseparable. We wouldn’t have Christianity without its ties to Jesus, and without Christianity… Jesus who?
But, you also have to admit, it’s hard to blame somebody for what happens in his name after he dies. Even in the gospels, it’s clear that Jesus was never interested in establishing a “Church”; this is borne-out by the fact that the gospel character almost never uses the word “church” (ekklesia)…. Well, he does say it…but only twice. And only in Matthew.
So how did we arrive at the religious institution that we have today? It certainly doesn’t seem like this poor Joshua/Jesus’ fault. Yes, he may have said some inspiring, seemingly paradoxical things about ‘loving your enemy” or making the “kingdom of God” more present in the world. But he wasn’t at all interested in establishing a new religion… or creed. Hell, (apparently) he wasn’t even a good Jew! :-)
So, while we really do appreciate what you’ve written in your post, VorJack, we find that… we agree on very many things. Except one: Jesus didn’t do it; his followers did. It’s not Jesus’ fault.
When you, VorJack, pass from this life into the great unknown, our hope is that you won’t be maligned posthumously by followers who decide to act in your name! :-)
Great discussion, though — thanks for your thoughtful response!
we agree on very many things. Except one: Jesus didn’t do it; his followers did. It’s not Jesus’ fault.
Actually, that’s something that I agree with, as I thought I explained in the opening paragraphs.
What I’m disagreeing with are statements like the following, from your site:
My point is that we simply don’t have the necessary evidence to make claims like this. I’m not a mythicist, and I accept the consensus (or what I perceive to be the consensus) that there are a few facts about the life of Jesus that we can accept as highly probable. But I don’t think these few facts and a handful of sayings provide enough information for us to reconstruct a through reconstruction of Jesus’ message. Bold statements like the one’s above are wishful thinking on the author’s part and not based on any actual historical knowledge.
the reason why many scholars find that the Josephus quotes about Jesus was filled in by later Xian followers is the fact that Josephus spends much more time on much minor figures from that region of the world but only has two excerpts on Jesus.
some might argue that since Josephus wrote in the 1st century AD, the Xians had a very small following and did not have much impact on the politics of the region at that time, and of course we are looking at Jesus with a 21st century lens.
but it makes one wonder…
dope piece btw…
Isn’t the “real” Jesus the version that is promulgated by the sect of Christianity that beat other sects? For starters, most American Protestant Christians aren’t familiar with the historical controversies over whether Jesus was “fully human” or “fully divine,” to say nothing of questions about the historical Jesus. Also, I find it interesting how the “real” Jesus varies widely among those who claim to understand “who” this “real” Jesus was/is.
I was responding to VorJack’s reply to notjesussfault.com
The gospels are historical fiction
Only taboo and fear of America’s xian taliban — prevent daring to grasp that the life of Jesus is identical to the life of Sherlock Holmes. That is, they had no lives. They are fictional characters.
Holmes and Jesus have also taken on a “life of their own” outside of canonic primary writings “about” them. Witness first-rate Holmesian fan fiction novel, ‘The 7% Solution’ — the title refers to Holmes’ addiction to injectable cocaine. Theology, starting with Paul (fl. 50-65 CE) and including the gospels is fifth-rate fan fiction.
Even if the stage set is historically appropriate, Holmes’ London and Jesus’ Jerusalem are also fictionalized. In the real world, there never has been a 221B Baker Street. Dr Watson did not write The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Pilate was not governor of Judea — that office did not exist until after Jesus’ death. None of the four gospels was written by the people whose name each bears.
And Jesus certainly didn’t talk with Pilate, especially not using the grandiloquent rhetoric attributed to him by John. The real Pilate was noted for cruelty and disdain for the people — the Ecce Homo scene is contrary to fact. Jesus was an apostate from Judaism; such local affairs were of no interest to Rome. The penalty for his religious crime was being stoned to death.
Only after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE) did xians commit to writing the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jewish religious authorities and “the people” had accused Jesus of claiming to be “King of the Jews.” (Siding with Rome in appearance — as Paul advises — was a survival strategy.)
Now Rome had no problem putting upstart rebels to death on the cross — but there was no crucifixion, no stoning because Jesus could no more die on a cross than Holmes could die from a cocaine overdose.
Xians are fond of claiming that better evidence is available for Jesus’ life than for that of Julius Caesar. They lie.
I propose a counterargument: our evidence for Sherlock Holmes is just as solid as that for Jesus. And, that’s the gospel truth.
the anti_supernaturalist
Strange, I have a sudden urge to buy a condo in Portland.
Don’t encourage them!
Josephus was not 300 AD. He wrote for the Vespasian and was active in the 1st century AD and wrote about Jesus in both The Jewish War in 75 AD and Antiquities of the Jews in 94, which is close to living memory of the events. Of the two passages Josephus makes about Jesus one is accepted as accurate and not altered with other other has some debate around it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
As to the similarities of the story of Jesus and of son of (a) God stories running around like Mithras, I think it is entirely possible that those stories influenced the followers of Jesus after his death to make the mythical Jesus more like those stories, but I think that the idea that they invented whole cloth the character of Jesus is unlikely. Also there are some big differences in the stories. While you could say that Mithras had a “virgin” birth, he was born of a rock, not a person. To compare the two, you HAVE to look at both the differences as well as the similarities. To just look at the similarities is to invite confirmation bias into your conclusions.
Another strong argument against the idea of Jesus being entirely invented is the fact that his death by crucifixion is a detail that is pretty unlikely to have been made up. Jesus most likely existed and was most likely crucified. The reasoning here is that this form of execution is pretty embarrassing, it is basically a slave’s or low person’s death. This lends to the idea that this is a detail they could ignore and so they had to work with it, not something they would have thought up themselves.
The supernatural stuff is indeed created after his death. But more then a rabbi with the name Yeshua, I would also argue that
Also, as to no mention of Jesus until after his birth, that does not surprise me, his followers were not that powerful at the time and they likely spread their stories orally, which is most likely how they came to be embellished. However the fact that Jesus was mentioned by Josephus less then 50 years after the fact is pretty strong evidence that someone fitting a description of the historical Jesus did exist.
And to DDM, I would not call the bible a contemporary account. But you cannot discount it entirely. There is a scholarly process to trying to learn what is authentic and what is not in ancient texts. You need to apply the same methodology to the Bible, you cannot just throw it out whole cloth.
“but I think that the idea that they invented whole cloth the character of Jesus is unlikely.”
The fact that there were literally dozens or hundreds of itinerant apocalyptic rabbis running around the countryside during this period of the Roman occupation, and the fact that the name Yeshua is one of the more common ones, doesn’t make your argument very compelling.
Sure, there was almost certainly an itinerant rabbi with the name Yeshua preaching that the Roman occupation was a punishment from God, but so what? All the important details are the ones concerning the supernatural nature of this preacher, and those are the ones that were fabricated a generation or more after his death.
The Romans crucified thousands of people in the territories they controlled, as a warning to potential rebels. Not only did they crucify trouble-makers, they sometimes hung children around the neck of the crucified person. Like the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Romans got fed up with the residents of Palestine pretty quickly. Any book on the history of the Roman occupation should give more details. So, saying Jesus was crucified was like saying someone went down on the Wilhelm Gustloff – how can you prove they didn’t die that way? And if many rebels were crucified, it becomes a proud badge of resistance, not an embarrassment. Of course, tourism-conscious locals found a Jesus tomb for Saint Helena!
“He wrote for the Vespasian and was active in the 1st century AD and wrote about Jesus in both The Jewish War in 75 AD and Antiquities of the Jews in 94, which is close to living memory of the events.”
Um, in a time period when life expectancy was less than forty? Not even close to living memory. You’re talking two to four generations – plenty of time to develope a myth – look at Mormonism or Scientology for examples.
“Another strong argument against the idea of Jesus being entirely invented is the fact that his death by crucifixion is a detail that is pretty unlikely to have been made up. Jesus most likely existed and was most likely crucified.”
Crucifiction took days, often more than a week, to kill – and yet Jesus is supposed to have been dead in less than two days? That argues pretty strongly against it.
“The reasoning here is that this form of execution is pretty embarrassing, it is basically a slave’s or low person’s death.”
It does, however, fit exactly with what the church wants us to think about Jesus – a man who, if he existed, they actually know remarkably little about that isn’t third hand or demonstrably fiction.
It’s well accepted that the passage on Jesus was added during the reign of Constantine, early 4th century, possibly at the prompting of the Bishop Eusebius.
Citation:
Solomn Zeitlin, “The Christ Passage in Josephus,” in The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Volume XVIII [1928], pp. 231-255.
Actually crucifixion was a punishment reserved for enemies of rome. If Jesus was just claiming to be the messiah and therefore a blasphemer the punishment would have been stoning, as written in Exodus. Either he wasn’t crucified or he pissed off the romans in a way that is nt mentioned in the bible. The biblical account of his trial and execution is ridiculous.
Not to mention, as VorJack said, there are NO contemporary texts from the time mentioning Jesus besides the Bible.You’d think such a great guy would catch the attention of people who would wish to write about him.
That was meant to be a reply to Ty…
I agree with this statement actually. That’s what I was trying to get at in my post poorly. I just don’t like it when people try to claim that Jesus was an entirely made up character. He had some basis in history, but separating the myth from the reality is difficult.
I disagree entirely. It’s not possible to be definitive about Jesus’ existence either way, simply because the evidence is so poor – but if you tried to prove he actually existed to a court of law, you’d get laughed out of the room anywhere but the Deep South. One theory I’ve heard is that he’s a mis-telling of Joseph from the Old Testament. I could see that. It’s also possible that he was juat another one of the many mystic men of that era – that would explain why no historians who were actually around at the time ever mentioned him. You’d think he’d draw some attention if he really could do all the stuff that the bible says he could, and yet outside of the bible he isn’t mentioned at all, by anybody.
All of this suggests that he either didn’t exist or he wasn’t noteworthy for anything other than getting nailed to a tree by a bunch of Romans, just like tens of thousands of other enemies of the state.
Well, wasn’t something about a spear driven through his side? *tries to remember* That’s pretty lethal, I think.
Fair point, well presented.