Jesus who?

There is an interesting discussion over at the Stone god’s site addressing the who Jesus was.

There is a comment that we need to address. The author’s words will be indented.

We are inclined to agree with him when he writes

“Prove” is a big word. People who like “proof” should probably avoid ancient history altogether and stick to the hard sciences or to mathematics. Historians don’t “prove” things – they make careful and structured assessments of likelihood, based on analysis of relevant material.

But that as far as our agreement is likely to take us. What Tim write next

It is most likely that a man called Yeshua who came from Nazareth and was executed in Jerusalem by crucifixion is the point of origin of the later stories. This is the most parsimonious reading of the evidence and the one that requires the least number of suppositions.

is in my view not so much a historical position but a faith position. In my village, there is a story of Lwanda Magere whose strength lay in his shadow. To kill him, the enemy tribe gave him a bride who revealed his secret and so one day in the battle field, a spear was aimed at his shadow which killed him and we have stones as proof. That this story is not widespread is not reason enough to dismiss it.

Tim is stretching facts when he writes

The idea that there was no such person when so much of our material points directly to him existing, on the other hand, doesn’t stand up to Occam’s Razor.

The miracles claimed for Jesus are incredible. The material Tim claims must be the bible stories. But these unless he can demonstrate their supernatural nature are inadmissible. The bible is claimed to by others to be in every way the very word of god. Unless this is demonstrated, we can’t take it into evidence. But if for arguments sake we do, then any conflict in matter of fact that we are unable to arbitrate renders the whole record useless.

He continues to say

It requires a convoluted series of suppositions, perhapses, what ifs and maybes, none of which are sustained by any evidence. For example, most versions of the Jesus Myth hypothesis requires that there was an earlier form of proto-Christianity which didn’t believe in a historical Jesus at all but believed in a purely mythic, allegorical or celestial one. It is claimed this earlier form Christianity gave rise to the form that taught about a historical Jesus (even though one didn’t exist) and then vanished from history. Where is the evidence that indicates all this?

It could be the case that such versions exist. I am not aware. But Paul, the foremost character in this narrative doesn’t mention a physical Jesus. And there is no Christianity to speak of before Paul. The gospels if anything are biographies of the supposed Jesus. If Tim has contrary evidence, I am willing to consider it.

He concludes

The historical Jesus idea just fits the evidence better and makes more sense. It’s simply more logical.

Which evidence? The bible? The writings by the church fathers or what evidence?

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

18 thoughts on “Jesus who?

  1. john zande says:

    He’s an odd chap, that Tim. Has the personality of an ugly house brick

    Liked by 1 person

  2. There was also, without any doubt, a real Zeus. Zeus Goldberg was his name. He was a shoe cobbler with a “lightening-like” temper who was considered a “god” in his village because he made such awesome shoes. This can be the only true explanation of how the “god” Zeus came to be. He’s based on this real guy. I mean, COME ON!!!! It isn’t like people make these gods up and convince others they are real, is it?

    Liked by 2 people

  3. I think Tim is crossing lines between the different Jesus myths out there in an effort to raise the possibility of a real Jesus existing. Several assertions of myth exist, like the Christ that comes back from the dead or just regular rabbi Yeshua who had his own personal death cult. Often the latter gets used to put a foot in the door so the former can carry more weight. The thinking is that if Jesus was a real person, then the chances of supernatural Jesus becomes more likely.

    Really, Christians are more fortunate we don’t have more records of what was going on in Judea 2000 years ago. Otherwise, we’d have more opportunities to find out what actually happened. Based on experience digging into other mythologies, the results might not be something they’d like.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. renudepride says:

    It seems as though he is trying to make the historical Jesus to fit the role of the mythical Jesus. That is neither historical or provable. What that leaves here is a supposition that doesn’t support itself nor withstands scrutiny.

    Naked hugs!


  5. shelldigger says:

    After the words “It is most likely” all we have there is an assertion. Baseless even. That which comes after has little to help it either.

    In the golden era of the leprechauns there was a mighty leprechaun king. His name was Jeebusish. Jeebusish had greater powers that the other leprechauns and consequently more gold. I know all of this because I once read of leprechauns…


  6. rautakyy says:

    I think it is quite possible, that both Lwanda Magere and Yeshua the rabbi existed once. It might be equally possible, that both or either of them are made up characters, or that such characters are based on several people who really existed and fit the description up to a point. That has absolutely nothing at all to do wether they were able to perform unnatural acts.

    I prefer to call their supernatural and miraculous deeds simply unnatural, since mere using of the concept of supernatural or miraculous seems to smuggle in the idea that such is even possible outside fairytales to people who have been indoctrinated to believe immaterial things are true, without themselves ever actually witnessing anything of the kind any more than anyone ever having found anything like that through any even remotely objective study.

    In addition, I am pretty sure, that even if this Yeshua dude really existed he did not come from Nazareth, because no such place even existed for centuries after his alledged adventures. This according to both written contemporary sources (Josephus) and the archaeological study (in modern day Nazareth). It is a clear indicator, that the stories about him are mostly fabricated. So much so, that some of the writers of the Gospels at earliest some 70 years after the events have gotten it so wrong, that they think it was his place of origin. Even though most likely in the oral tradition, that preceded the written versions of the stories referred to him as A nazarene – a Jewish ascet and a monk, so to speak, when even the very stories about him tell us his alledged ascetic endeavours and how he was all about forgiveness, a state that the nazarene monks sought fervorously. Usually because they had some previous transgressions against social morals of their own, or those of the society around them.


  7. Autumn Cote says:

    Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to I’ll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. There is no fee; I’m simply trying to add more content diversity for our comm5unity and I enjoyed reading your work. If “OK” please let me know via email.



We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s