Historical Jesus

Originally posted by buckky
It seems odd that basically nothing concrete is out there. Is there any historical record of Mohammad or the Buddha ?

What would be 'concrete' to you? The Gospels and other NT books are fairly concrete. Jesus wasn't very famous during his lifetime, (he had 12 followers apparently) and we don't have many writings from that time anyway. I don't find it particularly odd that there are no birth certificates, court records etc which mention him.

I do however agree with you that it is not a foregone conclusion that he existed. I have seen some pretty good arguments for there being multiple people from whom the stories grew, or for the whole thing being fictional. Even Christians were selective about the early writings about him. If the gnostic Christians had become the largest group we would probably have a very different picture of who Jesus was.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What would be 'concrete' to you? The Gospels and other NT books are fairly concrete. Jesus wasn't very famous during his lifetime, (he had 12 followers apparently) and we don't have many writings from that time anyway. I don't find it particularly odd that there are no birth certificates, court records etc which mention him.

I do however agree with you ...[text shortened]... become the largest group we would probably have a very different picture of who Jesus was.

I do however agree with you that it is not a foregone conclusion that he existed. I have seen some pretty good arguments for there being multiple people from whom the stories grew, or for the whole thing being fictional. Even Christians were selective about the early writings about him. If the gnostic Christians had become the largest group we would probably have a very different picture of who Jesus was.

Well, on this point, I think you are mistaken. The image you present is of a kind of contest between mainstream Christians and gnostic Christians, the former winning only because of their majority. Gnostic Christianity however was a later development. Its writings all originate from the 2nd century at the least. And I think it is important to note also that not all gnostic works were rejected by mainstream Christianity. The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, for example, was obviously heretical (self-baptism, mandatory celibacy, female ministry, etc) yet quite popular as a devotional text. Gnostic to the core yet still popular.

If I resonate with a story of someone's life , then I like it and like to repeat parts of it to maybe illustrate a point.
Whether they actually did exactly the things that were claimed they did is always dubious. I think a lot of people's life stories got mixed up.
I know personally of one modern day author that has stolen the life experiences of another to take credit for the other guys life work.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is 2 things primarily:

1. That it is not so important to know categorically if someone lived and lived the way that people say s/he did. The message of their lives (the message delivered largely by living and not just talking), can be a shining light of an example for another, even if the story isn't exactly true.

2.Try to find examples of modern or best, living people when trying to find the truth of anything.
There are people out there that know what Jesus knew, but they don't advertise in the Yellow Pages. (I believe rvsakhadeo may back me up on this point)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
If I resonate with a story of someone's life , then I like it and like to repeat parts of it to maybe illustrate a point.
Whether they actually did exactly the things that were claimed they did is always dubious. I think a lot of people's life stories got mixed up.
I know personally of one modern day author that has stolen the life experiences of ano ...[text shortened]... ey don't advertise in the Yellow Pages. (I believe rvsakhadeo may back me up on this point)

Well, that's certainly a popular modern take on religious myth. For most Christians, however, the historical reality of Christ is essential: the gospels are not merely morally exemplary; they are the story of human redemption, the conquering of sin and death that has current implications. If there were no Christ, obviously the gospels are still morally valuable -- stressing the importance of humility, poverty over prosperity, love for others and so on -- but they would not have the same significance.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, that's certainly a popular modern take on religious myth. For most Christians, however, the historical reality of Christ is essential: the gospels are not merely morally exemplary; they are the story of human redemption, the conquering of sin and death that has current implications. If there were no Christ, obviously the gospels are still morally valu ...[text shortened]... ty over prosperity, love for others and so on -- but they would not have the same significance.

I concede it may sound like a modern popular take, but it is my own conclusions.

If I had to bet , I would say JC was a real guy that did much of what was attributed to him in the bible. However it is very hard to categorically state that he is exactly what chrsitians say he was. (Not that chrsitians are agreed on exactly what he was, let alone the rest of us.)

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, on this point, I think you are mistaken. The image you present is of a kind of contest between mainstream Christians and gnostic Christians, the former winning only because of their majority. Gnostic Christianity however was a later development. Its writings all originate from the 2nd century at the least. And I think it is important to note also that ...[text shortened]... le ministry, etc) yet quite popular as a devotional text. Gnostic to the core yet still popular.

I do know that the gnostics writings came later than the gospels, but I still maintain that if you were a gnostic Christian you would have a very different picture of who Jesus was than you currently do.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do know that the gnostics writings came later than the gospels, but I still maintain that if you were a gnostic Christian you would have a very different picture of who Jesus was than you currently do.

The Gnostics to christianity are like Zen is to buddhism or Sufi is to Islam ....

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do know that the gnostics writings came later than the gospels, but I still maintain that if you were a gnostic Christian you would have a very different picture of who Jesus was than you currently do.

Well, obviously. That's simply to say that gnostic Christianity differs from orthodox Christianity. My point is just that gnosticism is not some obscure yet equal version of Christianity. It is a later development. I was really only responding to a minor point in your post.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, obviously. That's simply to say that gnostic Christianity differs from orthodox Christianity. My point is just that gnosticism is not some obscure yet equal version of Christianity. It is a later development. I was really only responding to a minor point in your post.

My main point is that the documentation of Jesus' life is biased by the beliefs of the writers and also the collectors of the documents. If there were other historical documents recording his life that disagreed significantly with Christian beliefs, they would probably not have been preserved.

Originally posted by Conrau K
My point is just that gnosticism is not some obscure yet equal version of Christianity. It is a later development.

It is obscure is it not? How is it not equal? Christianity was a later development than Judaism and Islaam came even later. How does one talk of equality or inequality?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, obviously. That's simply to say that gnostic Christianity differs from orthodox Christianity. My point is just that gnosticism is not some obscure yet equal version of Christianity. It is a later development. I was really only responding to a minor point in your post.

There is some thought that gnosticism may have come upon the scene sooner than is typically believed. The surviving gnostic documents weren't written until the second century or later, but they may have been based on stories that were in circulation for much longer. Proto-orthodox Christianity may have gotten in on the ground floor simply by writing their version down first, with the gnostics trying to play catch-up by following suit.

Originally posted by rwingett
There is some thought that gnosticism may have come upon the scene sooner than is typically believed. The surviving gnostic documents weren't written until the second century or later, but they may have been based on stories that were in circulation for much longer. Proto-orthodox Christianity may have gotten in on the ground floor simply by writing their version down first, with the gnostics trying to play catch-up by following suit.

There is some thought that gnosticism may have come upon the scene sooner than is typically believed. The surviving gnostic documents weren't written until the second century or later, but they may have been based on stories that were in circulation for much longer. Proto-orthodox Christianity may have gotten in on the ground floor simply by writing their version down first, with the gnostics trying to play catch-up by following suit.

You may have something there.

Dr. Gary Habermas on Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, short debate:

YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by josephw
There is some thought that gnosticism [b]may have come upon the scene sooner than is typically believed. The surviving gnostic documents weren't written until the second century or later, but they may have been based on stories that were in circulation for much longer. Proto-orthodox Christianity may have gotten in on the ground floor simpl ...[text shortened]... the gnostics trying to play catch-up by following suit.

You may have something there.[/b]

Unlike Christians, I do not deal in absolutes. Very little about the formative years of Christianity can be known for certain. It follows that the theory I put forward is a tentative one.