When did Jesus actually die?

[PoloPrincess]

Can someone point me in the right direction?
We know that Jesus was crucified on Good Friday and he rose from the dead on Easter Sunday.
Then what happened? When and how did he finally die?

Patriarchy, you've said a few times now that early believers were 'incentivised' of motivated to fabricate Jesus. I'm not entirely clear what you mean by that - in what ways would you say they were incentivised, and why?

Not trying too be goady - just want to be sure I understand your argument.

Every other religion has had to have some sort of original figure, from Zoroastrianism through Mithraism and Hinduism etc.. I'm assuming that Christians don't believe in any of those deities, so the insistence that Christianity had one and all the others were made up just seems weird.

53rd

I've been involved in an ongoing discussion about whether or not Jesus was a real person. You've challenged me and others on that point many times, but now your saying that's not your point at all, that actually you want to discuss why the church in general chose to accept the gospels it did and reject others etc.

I mean it's great you have a position on that but it's not really the point that's being disputed is it?

The whole reason that the veracity or otherwise of the gospels has even been brought up is because its directly relevant to the ongoing discussion about whether Jesus really existed. If you don't want be actively involved in that debate then fine, but then why do you keep engaging?

Bonting

It's my proposal that if you were an early Christian (circa 1ADish) then the entire basis for your religion is that God came to earth in the form of a man who performed miracles and then died for our sins and was resurrected.

That being the case, I'd argue you are strongly incentivized to try and convince others that this God in man form actually existed and was a real person, otherwise your going to be left looking slightly silly.

You might even go about convincing others by writing potted histories of this 'mans' life, complete with associated miracles etc. The problem with that is that there might be some significant inconsistencies between different people's accounts becuase your not basing what your writing on anything that actually happened.

It'll be alright though, because you'll say that everything you are describing happened years and years ago, so nobody is going to challenge you on any of it are they?

I've been involved in an ongoing discussion about whether or not Jesus was a real person.

Dude, pay attention. You’ve been involved in an ongoing debate where you made a bunch of claims about various things w/r/t religion. People (including me!) have corrected you. People are responding to the points you made, just not in the way you were hoping or expecting they would. That’s okay! Maybe a chance to consider that your mental model of how theists (and other non-theists...) think may be a bit off, though?

actually you want to discuss why the church in general chose to accept the gospels it did and reject others etc.

You literally asked why the church chose to accept some gospels and not others. A couple of times, in fact!

Hundreds if not thousands of identical stories predate the Jesus story. All believed in and preached by their followers. Where is ANY evidence that the Bible stories are anything other than copies of previous stories?
Its just the same stuff over and over again but with the names changed.

Horus: Winter solstice virgin birth in a manger, heralded by a star. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucified, descended into hell; resurrected after three days...

Attis of Phrygia: Another winter solstice virgin birth. The saviour, slain for the salvation of mankind, body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. He was both divine son and the father. On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, & after three days resurrected...

Zarathustra: Another virgin birth & “immaculate conception. Baptised in a river, tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He cast out demons and restored sight to the blind. He taught about heaven & hell, revealed mysteries like resurrection, judgement, salvation & the apocalypse. A “second coming” was/is expected...

Glycon: Son of God, miraculous birth, manifestation of divinity, fulfilled divine prophecy, believers spoke in tongues, he performed miracles, healed the sick & raised the dead...

Dionysus: Another winter solstice virgin birth in a manger. A travelling teacher, performed miracles, turned water into wine. Rode in a triumphal procession on an ass. A sacred king who was killed & rose from the dead at Easter. Considered King of Kings, God of Gods, Only Begotten Son, Savior, Redeemer, Sin Bearer, Anointed One, etc. Crucified on a tree...

Romulus: Another virgin birth by divine impregnation. Son of god, taken away to heaven but made appearances afterwards. Known as the “triple deity”...

Krishna: Another supernatural immaculate conception, both human and divine, both god & son of god, saviour, adoptive son of a carpenter, without sin, visited by wise men and shepherds at birth. Withdrew to the wilderness & fasted, performed miracles, healed disease, cured a leper, cast out demons, raised the dead. Disciples spread his teachings, was meek & merciful, associated with sinners. Had a last supper, crucified and resurrected...

Buddha: I cant be arsed writing more but the list goes on and on.

Because Jesus wasn't the only enlightened being. ^

53rd

My entire point from the start of this thread is that there is no unbiased evidence for the existence of Jesus. We have gone down a couple of rabbit holes exploring that point but all directly related to that central position.

You'll note I didn't take us down those holes myself but went there because I was challenged on points such as biblical scholarship etc by you and others.

Now I have continually returned to my central premise. If that's not what you want to discuss then fine, but then why do you continue to engage when you can see thats my position?

It kind of feels like you want to challenge me on it but don't have a response to my point that you can't go on the evidence of the gospels etc because they are biased towards the existence of Jesus and written years after the fact.

If you disagree with that and want to challenge me on it then present evidence that shows its not true.

If that's not what you want to discuss then also fine, but then maybe take the discussion in a different direction.

It seems slightly disingenuous to continually engage with me whenever I make those points, challenge what I say, then when I responded accuse me of missing your point and talking about different things.

I mean, your much smarter than I am, I thought you'd see that?

It kind of feels like you want to challenge me on it but don't have a response to my point

It 'feels like' what you want to see? Weird, that.

If I'm trying to challenge you on anything regarding the historicity of Jesus, it's your fundamental misunderstanding of the framework I and many others are operating in. Yes, I do think there was a historical Jesus - as I did when I was an atheist, as do the majority of scholars working in that field (as a theologian told you above), as did Billy Graham, as does Richard Dawkins. This is not, in and of itself, a metaphysical claim.

Where your framework differs is that you're linking the historicity of Jesus with the divinity of Jesus with the practices of the early Church. Which sure, you can do, others do (you'd get on surprisingly well with some evangelicals!). But if you're talking to people who don't do that and you're expecting them to argue as if they do, you're going to continue going round and round in circles in a way that you're likely finding quite frustrating.

In other words: you're saying things like "if Jesus historically existed, then there'd be direct eyewitness accounts of miracles", or "if Jesus historically existed, why didn't the Church put these other documents in the Bible?". And when people say "those are different things", you get fed up with people not playing your game by your rules. Like earlier on, when I mentioned Ehrman as an example of a Biblical scholar who talks about the historicity of Jesus without being a Christian himself, or without using apologetics to do it, and you said "ah, but he became an atheist through his studies!" like that... disproves his case? Or mine?

I'm happy to talk about why I think what I think the historicity of Jesus (as I have above! as others have! which you then disregarded because you wanted to talk about why there's no eyewitness accounts of miracles or why the infancy gospels didn't make it into the canon!), but the divinity of Jesus is a matter of religious faith; I'm not interested or able or at all motivated to convince you there.

I'd briefly add that your argument about the early church making Jesus up to convince others seems both circular and poorly rooted in the text and in the context of Jewish (or Greek given the context) religious thought of the time. To very very briefly summarise:

• circular: you can't argue both that the very early Christians were motivated to get other people to share their belief in Jesus, and that to do so they invented Jesus.

• textual: the early church was around and growing and producing documents very soon after Jesus's (alleged I suppose?) execution; they were also writing these documents (including gospels) down primarily for that community, not for people in distant lands in centuries to come. So when they're referencing X and Y people 'among us' who knew Jesus in life (they mention his mother, a brother, a couple of the apostles), then that's a fairly bad tactic to take if he didn't exist unless you're running a pretty well-organised campaign, and the early church is very definitely not well-organised.

• contextual: refer to bonting's points about crucifixion as a punishment and expectations of the Jewish messiah.

(also, could you consider maybe laying off with the constant accusations that anyone disagreeing with you is lying, disingenuous, sockpuppeting, pretending they believe things they don't just to try to catch you out, etc etc? It's a fairly unconstructive stance to take - I appreciate that to you it might seems like a take-no-prisoners hard-headed Debater Pro approach, but it's just making you come across as pointlessly unpleasant.)

53rd

There is a good reason why I have deliberately conflated the divinity of Jesus with his existence, because your quite right, they are two separate questions. The reason is becuase most of the people on here are Christians and it weakens their position.

Let me explain.

The strongest argument against the existence of Jesus is the so called 'argument from silence'. I made it at the start of the thread. Basically if he existed, then how come no contemporaries wrote about him in any way?

Of course the obvious rebuttal to that position (and one that you and others have made on here) is that Jesus was a small figure at the time. An itinerant preacher who was executed in a backwater Roman province. He is written about as much as we would expect such a figure to be. If an atheist made that argument, It would be pretty strong.

But you are a Christian, so I know that's not what you believe. You believe that Jesus was literally God in human form who gave his life for out sins and was raised from the dead. (I don't know how you feel about all his other miracles). In which case you can't make the argument above. Such a miraculous figure is the opposite of a small time preacher who nobody would have taken any notice of.

You can't have it both ways, it's the argument from having your cake and eating it.

In terms of how the stories of Jesus got started, what I'm suggesting is that some people made up Jesus from earlier, similar stories about virgin births etc, they then convinced others through oral tradition and that those stories, made up by the first liars but then earnestly believed by other early Christians were written down to convince others, if some later Christians exaggerated along the way, then so much the better.

It doesn't require that they were all lying, all it takes is one convincing liar to get others to spread the lie, all the while believing they are acting in good faith.

If you want an object lesson of how one man's lie can spread to millions and be earnestly believed, see Scientology.

As other posters have described, the Jesus story is a tale as old as time that predates the Bible. It's so common it's almost a trope.

• Heavenly parents

• Comes to earth as an orphan

• Raised in poverty by good people

• Rises above his humble beginnings to do great and miraculous things.

It's a common story, I mean I'm describing the plot to Superman if nothing else...

Its interesting that you say you were an Atheist who became a Christian.

I'm the other way around. I thought my way out of it. Why did you decide to stop relying on logic and evidence?

An excellent post 53rdWay.

Patriarchy, your definition of debate seems to be: I'm right and you are wrong, with a big dollop of projection thrown in. Or as another Mnetter put it on one of your other threads coming into a predominantly female website to try to prove more women wrong. It's a hobby I suppose.

Dione

It would seem self evident that I think I'm right, or I wouldn't come on a online forum and argue my position.

I'm certainly not going to apologise for robustly defending my arguments. If you come at me with evidence and logic, I can and do change my mind.

Gender really doesn't have anything to do with what we are discussing right now.

So...

Anything to add to the actual discussion Dione?

There is a fascinating website strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/ here where those who want to asset that scientific materialism is the only way we can know stuff go head to head with mostly catholic theologians and philosophers. The short version is that a theory of knowledge that says we can only rely on evidence doesn't get off the starting blocks.

Enjoy!

Thegreenheart

If by 'doesn't get off the starting blocks' you mean they essentially restate Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism then erm ok...

That argument was debunked in the early 90s I think.

I am adding to the discussion. I'm just not adding what you think I should.

If Jesus didn't exist, his opposers wouldn't have had a hard time stopping the christian movement.
The Romans put Jesus to death, and there's evidence Pontius Pilate existed.

Do you really think that a man who the ruling Jews and ruling Romans hated so much as to kill him didn't exist.

Nobody would have believed in someone who didn't exist who was meant to have walked among them.

It took hundreds of years before people started questioning his existence.

I have to agree with Patriarchy, that Dione is not adding anything to the discussion except a certain amount of GF-ery.

"and there's evidence Pontius Pilate existed". Yes, there is. And it's clear from that evidence that he wouldn't have so much a blinked about ordering Jesus to be taken out back and killed on the spot, far less dithered about it and washed his hands of it. The Roman Empire eventually posted him as far away as they could and made sure he didn't return...

"It took hundreds of years before people started questioning his existence."

How do you know?

Myusername

Every single thing you just wrote (except for the Pontius Pilate bit) is only evidenced in any way from the Bible.

Can you see the obvious problem if that's your only source of evidence on something as important as this?

It took hundreds of years before people started questioning his existence

Like Cardinal said, how can you possibly know that?

He didn't die, he lives on in all our hearts.

Afternooncatnap

He didn't die, he lives on in all of our hearts

I feel the same way about Dumbledore.

There is a similar level of evidence to support his existence.

Juvenal, Lucanus, Philo-Judæus, Martial, Epictetus, Seneca, Persius Hermogones Silius Italicus, Pliny Elder, Plutarch, Statius, Arrian, Pliny Younger, Ptolemy, Petronius, Appian, Dion Pruseus, Justus of Tiberius, Phlegon, Paterculus, Apollonius, Phædrus, Suetonius, Quintilian, Valerius Maximus, Pausanias, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias, Florus Lucius, Columella, Pomponius Mela, Lucian, Valerius Flaccus, Appion of Alexandria, Quintius Curtius, Damis, Theon of Smyrna, Aulus Gellius and Favorinus

When were these men in Palestine, Galilee and Jerusalem Patriarchy?