Historical records of Jesus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My understanding and I am not religious, is he did actually exist. Now, the bigger question for me is did he really have these visions or did he have a mental illness?

I was raised religious, but am not today. It's interesting to think about. If people like the major historical religious (deities & prophets) figures did (or claimed to do), or said the same stuff today, they would be classified as bipoar, bpd, narcissistic, schizophrenic, completely making shit up, etc. The psychological standards have totally changed.

But because it was in the past... somehow we believe it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding and I am not religious, is he did actually exist. Now, the bigger question for me is did he really have these visions or did he have a mental illness?

I was raised religious, but am not today. It's interesting to think about. If people like the major historical religious (deities & prophets) figures did (or claimed to do), or said the same stuff today, they would be classified as bipoar, bpd, narcissistic, schizophrenic, completely making shit up, etc. The psychological standards have totally changed.

But because it was in the past... somehow we believe it.

If you read the gospels, Jesus did not talk about himself *that* much. He was under a lot of scrutiny, because the Jewish leaders were already having a freakout that people were calling him the Messiah. So he mostly taught, talked in parables, and performed miracles. Example:

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.” 20 [b]Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matthew was an eyewitness
They are not exactly sure who mark or John were
Luke was a Doctor/scientist who double and triple checked the details.

The gospels were stories told orally from one generation to the next. They were not written down for another 200 years after the death of Jesus. Do you think the accounts were still completely accurate by then?

Not sure the basic story is probably accurate . Whether it was embellished or watered down is possible . Scientifically , the shroud of Turin has a huge effect on me. The shroud is the most confounding and inexplicable artifact in the world and it just so happens to have the image of a man with crucifiction / scourging wounds and crown of thorns head damage.

have scientists formed any opinions about the shroud - does it date to the correct time period, etc.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin

[Anonymous]

Thank you, all. Some good information to discuss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding and I am not religious, is he did actually exist. Now, the bigger question for me is did he really have these visions or did he have a mental illness?

I was raised religious, but am not today. It's interesting to think about. If people like the major historical religious (deities & prophets) figures did (or claimed to do), or said the same stuff today, they would be classified as bipoar, bpd, narcissistic, schizophrenic, completely making shit up, etc. The psychological standards have totally changed.

But because it was in the past... somehow we believe it.

There was an interesting, if quite speculative, book written about this some decades ago called "The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Brain," by Julian Jaynes. The theory, as I understand it is that the two hemispheres of the brain were not quite as in communication thousands of years ago as they are today and that hearing voices was the norm, not the exception.

Today it is much more the exception, and we tend to label people who hear voices as schizophrenics. Yet there are still many people today who hear voices but otherwise show none of the signs of schizophrenia or bipolar, another mental illness in which people may hear voices. They even have an association called Intervoice.

There are a number of saints who had auditory or visual hallucinations, for lack of a better word that is not quite so negative in connotation, like Joan of Arc and Teresa of Avila. Paul would also be among these for his Damascene conversion. Dostoefsky was an epileptic who experienced ecstatic religious visions during his seizures, and these were influential in his writings. There has been speculation that Muhammed was also an epileptic who received the Quran during seizure episodes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding and I am not religious, is he did actually exist. Now, the bigger question for me is did he really have these visions or did he have a mental illness?

Really? I would think that the biggest question would be "Did he rise from the dead?"

No, a non religious person would not ask that question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

That may justify skepticism that he indeed performed this deeds. But it is irrelevant to assess whether or not he existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found this online - like a PP said it was a few years after he died, like 60-ish later:

The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, writing in the 80s or early 90s C.E., indicated that both Jewish leaders and the Roman prefect played roles in the crucifixion of Jesus:

About the same time there lived Jesus, a wise man for he was a performer of marvelous feats and a teacher of such men who received the truth with pleasure. He attracted many Jews and many Greeks. He was called the Christ. Pilate sentenced him to die on the cross, having been urged to do so by the noblest of our citizens; but those who loved him at the first did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of the Christians, who are named after him, have not disappeared to this day.

Don't forget this longer quote, which included an embellished passage (bolded) which was thought to be a forgery to puff up Jesus as son of God.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

Yes, they may have been a1 century guy named Jesus and yes, he may have thought of himself as the messiah, but there is no first century evidence that he was, and there is lots of evidence that The Catholic church, as founded by Constantine in 325, made him one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found this online - like a PP said it was a few years after he died, like 60-ish later:

The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, writing in the 80s or early 90s C.E., indicated that both Jewish leaders and the Roman prefect played roles in the crucifixion of Jesus:

About the same time there lived Jesus, a wise man for he was a performer of marvelous feats and a teacher of such men who received the truth with pleasure. He attracted many Jews and many Greeks. He was called the Christ. Pilate sentenced him to die on the aving been urged to do so by the noblest of our citizens; but those who loved him at the first did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of the Christians, who are named after him, have not disappeared to this day.

His name was quite common back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

But don't go there, or you'll face the wrath of good Christians on this forum who will accuse you of making up lies about Jesus. Why study primary documents and artifacts when you can use the bible as the end all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matthew was an eyewitness
They are not exactly sure who mark or John were
Luke was a Doctor/scientist who double and triple checked the details.

The gospels were stories told orally from one generation to the next. They were not written down for another 200 years after the death of Jesus. Do you think the accounts were still completely accurate by then?

Not sure the basic story is probably accurate . Whether it was embellished or watered down is possible . Scientifically , the shroud of Turin has a huge effect on me. The shroud is the most confounding and inexplicable artifact in the world and it just so happens to have the image of a man with crucifiction / scourging wounds and crown of thorns head damage.

have scientists formed any opinions about the shroud - does it date to the correct time period, etc.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin

Wikipedia states "In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of AD 1260–1390, which coincides with the first certain appearance of the shroud in the 1350s and is much later than the burial of Jesus Christ.[1]"

But so what if the shroud dated back to the first century? It still would not prove that it came from Jesus' tomb or that Jesus was the son of god. And why would god only send us this one dubious shroud to prove the existence of his son? Nope - sounds much more like a trick of an shyster than an act of god.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should there be a written reference to Jesus during this lifetime? He was just a fairly insignificant Jewish peasant preacher while he was alive. Once his movement grew after his death, written references began to appear.

If a person is changing water into wine and resurrecting the dead, one would THINK those stories would be capture by literate folks.

No National Inquirer back in those days.

lots of gossip though, and stone carvings -- but none of Jesus until much later -- and quess what -- they looked amazingly like other ancient gods, complete with death on a cross, virgin birth and resurrection.

Can always count on you Groundhog!

Gossip abounded I am sure, but by nature it is evanescent and seldom leaves historical traces.