The Story of Jesus, Revisited.

[GeminiBrian]

Yes, rather naive of me I suppose.

Sorry, Quest - something's put me in a terrible mood and I'm snapping at everybody tonight - I didn't mean to sound so uppity.

[Questatement]

It's fine and you were right reminding me of what I overlooked.

[Apeman81]

Sorry, Quest - something's put me in a terrible mood and I'm snapping at everybody tonight - I didn't mean to sound so uppity.

The "monk" is in a funk?

Buck up, Gemini. Your among friends.

And, lamentably, yes, that is the extent of my talents as a rapper.

[GeminiBrian]

The "monk" is in a funk?

Buck up, Gemini. Your among friends.

And, lamentably, yes, that is the extent of my talents as a rapper.

Thank you, Ape my friend, but please don't give up your day job

[GeminiBrian]

It's fine and you were right reminding me of what I overlooked.

Now I feel bad - I think I'd better go to bed before I read someone else the riot act...

Brian.

[Apeman81]

Now I feel bad - I think I'd better go to bed before I read someone else the riot act...

Brian.

Please accept my internet tuck (as in tucking you in)

Enjoy

[RickSp]

Given that both the Romans and the Jews were prodigious record keepers and that there are zero contemporary references to Jesus in their records, I think that it is far more likely that the character of Jesus is an amalgam of messianic rabbis of the period. The Bible, as we know it, wasn't codified until around 350 BE, so a composite Jesus is no less likely that a single man or a complete fiction.

[RickSp]

And Q you still haven't answered my question, yes or no, is the Catholic Church, the institution, Christian?

[GeminiBrian]

Please accept my internet tuck (as in tucking you in)

Enjoy

You are very kind, Apeman - that's exactly what I needed!

[GeminiBrian]

Given that both the Romans and the Jews were prodigious record keepers and that there are zero contemporary references to Jesus in their records, I think that it is far more likely that the character of Jesus is an amalgam of messianic rabbis of the period. The Bible, as we know it, wasn't codified until around 350 BE, so a composite Jesus is no less likely that a single man or a complete fiction.

I've given the idea that Jesus might be a composite figure much thought over the years, and concluded that he did exist - despite the strong likelihood that certain extraneous myths and sayings were later attributed to him.

There is a distinct personality behind much of what we see of Jesus, enough to convince me that we are not talking about an invented puppet. generally speaking, his psychological traits seem pretty consistent to me, so much so that I can easily picture him as a real, and flawed human being.

Needless to say, the miracle stories are in another bracket (indeed, many Indian Fakirs insist to this day that they can reproduce many of Jesus' miracles) - so I relegate that side of things to another debate.

For what it's worth - my extensive readings on Jesus from diverse sources have left me very inclined to believe that Jesus was a charismatic man, with unusual and magnetic skills of influencing people, such as we see at intervals throughout history.

His tactics were relatively low-key, and rather subtle (and remarkably astute in the psychological sense) for the times he lived in, so I'm not really surprised that he was slow in coming to the attention of the historians: especially as there were quite a few rival preachers at work, and were far from being an unusual phenomenon in that period.

He had a burning conviction, first and foremost, that "The Kingdom of God" was imminent, and focused himself almost entirely on preparing people for this. His exhortations to lead good and ethical lives were directly relate to this belief, and he saw himself as God's prophet, if not His only son.

The rest, as they say, is history. When Jesus did finally come to the notice of the Romans as a result of agitation from the Jewish Sanhedrin, he was dealt with in the typical Roman way, and was put to an ignominious and brutal death.

Personally, I don't think this premature ending to Christ's ministry was on the cards - the gospel accounts relating to this rather sudden catastrophe are unreliable and conflicting, or outright later interpolations. The disciples were totally devastated - that much is clear - and whether Jesus' body was subsequently spirited away is open to speculation. If the theft of the body was possible, it would have enabled the followers to save face, and claim the ultimate victory and some vindication of their faith.

Nothing supernatural in any of the above, I would point out - but that is roughly how I see the historical Jesus.

[RickSp]

For what it's worth - my extensive readings on Jesus from diverse sources have left me very inclined to believe that Jesus was a charismatic man, with unusual and magnetic skills of influencing people, such as we see at intervals throughout history.

The complete absence of contemporary records make the single individual seem less likely. Jesus's "Palm Sunday" entrance into Jerusalem, as only one example, appears nowhere other than the Gospels. The three hundred year interval until the Bible and the doctrine were finalized provided more than enough time for editing and creative writing.

[GeminiBrian]

The complete absence of contemporary records make the single individual seem less likely.

But not impossible: I could probably think of several individuals who are known to us today through the findings of archaeology who would have been virtually unknown to the larger world in their own day.

I won't hasten to list them, not having yet looked into the matter, but I have every confidence that such existed.

Do we, for instance, have any independent evidence of the existence of Tut-Ankh-Amun dating from antiquity other than the records found in his tomb? As far as i know - (and I might stand to be corrected on this) - no ancient historian ever mentioned his name - but that's just an off-the-cuff example.

Jesus's "Palm Sunday" entrance into Jerusalem, as only one example, appears nowhere other than the Gospels. The three hundred year interval until the Bible and the doctrine were finalized provided more than enough time for editing and creative writing.

Again, that doesn't rule out the possibility that such an event actually happened, although I doubt it myself. Such confabulations invented later to fulfil OT prophesy are rampant in the Gospels, but fail to prove that a core figure I would identify as Jesus actually existed.

Some anecdotes about him just ring true to me, but although that's a subjective feeling, it seems to be borne out in the aggregate... As I said, there is rather more depth to the Jesus figure (to judge by modern psychological understanding of personality) than could be expected from ancient authors. It is just too consistent.