Proof for Jesus?

[Desert Fox]

Irrespective if Jesus was an actual person, there is a growing movement in Biblical scholarship that the New Testament should be looked at as Greek Literature. The writers were not as skilled as those who wrote the classics but still Greek literature.

Based on that, there is a secondary line of thought. The common belief I believe is that Hercules is completely legendary without a real person that the stories are based on? If we posit that the Gospel Jesus is based on a real person, how is he different than Hercules? Should we assume that the Greek tales of him are also based on a real person?

[Shibboleth]

I think it falls around the same reason why we think King Arthur was probably a myth built from the ground up but Boudica was not. While they both may have never actually lived, or that there was a person on which Arthurian legend was built there is just more historical references that have the potential to have truthiness than with the others.

With Boudica and Jesus we have someone like Tacitus writing about both. We don't have a similar semi-trustable reference with King Arthur or Heracles.

[bachfiend]

Jesus claims to be the Messiah in the bible but the Messiah wasn't meant to be God. He never claimed to be God. Some will say that he did by saying, "I am" but that is a bit much IMHO.

Some of the most violent disputes in the early church was about Jesus' divinity. Was he divine, if so when did he become so, etc.

Jesus is claimed to be the Messiah by the unknown authors who wrote the accounts later accepted as orthodox by the branch of Christianity that eventually won against other sects which were then declared heretical and suppressed. 

There were more than four gospels in circulation in the first few centuries of Christianity, some with very different versions of the nature of Jesus.

Sure but by logic Jesus never claimed anything, so you can't really call out that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. Not unless you are saying, "In the Bible, Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah."

I will say that we have enough evidence from writings like the Didache, Ignatius, Clement, etc. to have a pretty good idea as to what the early church believed. Most of the heresies that followed didn't reject Jesus' divinity or that he was the Messiah but disagreements as to the trinity and the nature of his divinity.

You're missing the point.  Jesus could have claimed to be the Messiah.  Or he might not have claimed to be the Messiah.  We just don't know because we only have the four gospels thought by the sect which eventually won to be orthodox enough to be copied and preserved.

And only the writings of the 'orthodox' early Christians were similarly preserved and copied.  Any writings considered later to be heretical weren't preserved, and we only know about them because orthodox writers quoted parts of their writings in order to attack them.

[Friendly Angel]

Jesus claims to be the Messiah in the bible but the Messiah wasn't meant to be God. He never claimed to be God. Some will say that he did by saying, "I am" but that is a bit much IMHO.

"If you have seen me you have seen the father."
"I and the father are one."
If you want to believe that Jesus thought he was God, you read John.

We just don't know because we only have the four gospels thought by the sect which eventually won to be orthodox enough to be copied and preserved.

Not true - we have the Gospels of Thomas, Barnabas, Mary, Judas, et al. We have stories of Jesus killing ornery kids, stories of Jesus making clay pigeons come to life.

[bachfiend]

Jesus claims to be the Messiah in the bible but the Messiah wasn't meant to be God. He never claimed to be God. Some will say that he did by saying, "I am" but that is a bit much IMHO.

"If you have seen me you have seen the father."
"I and the father are one."
If you want to believe that Jesus thought he was God, you read John.

We just don't know because we only have the four gospels thought by the sect which eventually won to be orthodox enough to be copied and preserved.

Not true - we have the Gospels of Thomas, Barnabas, Mary, Judas, et al. We have stories of Jesus killing ornery kids, stories of Jesus making clay pigeons come to life.

Agreed; here's a link to a version of Thomas' along with a commentary if you want to read 240 pages:

https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%93%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%81/%D0%98%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F/ENG/Leloup%20J.-Y.%20-%20The%20Gospel%20of%20Thomas.%20The%20Gnostic%20Wisdom%20of%20Jesus.pdf

It's no history but rather a collection of sayings many of which are present in the orthodox gospels.

[Awatsjr]

I disagree in that many turned to Jesus' brother and his crew for the "correct" directions. Paul won only through the church temple being destroyed. Based on what we know of course. Even Marcion had good success for a while.

Had the church temple survived things would be quite different.

[daniel1948]

... Had the church survived ...

Do you mean the Temple?

[Awatsjr]

... Had the church survived ...

Do you mean the Temple?

Yes. Good catch. Thanks. Although I was thinking, was it a church at that point? Too scary to imagine. LOL

[Shibboleth]

You're missing the point.  Jesus could have claimed to be the Messiah.  Or he might not have claimed to be the Messiah.  We just don't know because we only have the four gospels thought by the sect which eventually won to be orthodox enough to be copied and preserved.

And only the writings of the 'orthodox' early Christians were similarly preserved and copied.  Any writings considered later to be heretical weren't preserved, and we only know about them because orthodox writers quoted parts of their writings in order to attack them.

I am not missing the point. When someone says, "Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah." the part of "in the bible" is implied. What they are saying is, "Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah in the bible." Or more likely they are probably meaning, "In the gospels" because all kinds of crap is attributed to Jesus in Acts.

That is why my response was, "Well he did in the Gospels, he just never claimed to be God."

All that aside. The Bible was the daughter of the Church not the mother. We have lots and lots of writings of the Cappadocians and others, along with the writings of Paul and some of the earliest Christians. Sure there were lots and lots of things written and said about Jesus in the first 5 centuries. What we do see, very early on, is a continuity from the Church of Antioch. There were Gospels that some of the Church fathers debated as to their validity, for sure. We have much of that information. Others, it was pretty obvious that they were the equivalent of today's, "Fan fiction". Just like with Star Wars, the early Church was quick to put these down as not part of cannon... sometimes by dragging people through the street behind a galloping horse until they were dead.

[Shibboleth]

"If you have seen me you have seen the father."
"I and the father are one."
If you want to believe that Jesus thought he was God, you read John.

This is actually one that gets thrown at me quite a bit by Christians. Jesus is referencing Psalm 82 in the secution where he says that he and the father are one.

As far as I can tell, is that Jesus thought that he was the Messiah and that God the Father was in him guiding him to do good works and if you looked upon him you could see the Father because he was working through him. Still crazy as shit, but Jesus never really, to the best of my knowledge, ever says in the Bible... yep... I am god. This is why there were all of the heresies in the first handful of decades.