Interesting Essay About The Historicity Of Jesus

Click to access Fitzgerald2010HM.pdf

Thought I’d share this well-written essay about the historicity of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, with you all.   This isn’t really something I’ve an enormous interest in, but I thought this piece was quite good.  Now, I’m going to drop to my knees and thank the Lord Christ and the members of the Republican party for loving every person in America equally and without judgement or prejudice.   Thank you, and please, if you MUST chew gum while we’re driving, do not stick it under the car seat when you’re done.  $Amen$

22 thoughts on “Interesting Essay About The Historicity Of Jesus

  1. Good essay. Covers lots of facts that need to be discussed more often.
    I disagreed with him around page ninety in his discussion of the reason for the growth of Christianity. With the decline of Rome, there were few ways to survive as he says, the church practiced communism in the it acted as a welfare and care taking organization at grass root levels. In others words tge members cared for each other, shared with each other and looked after each other. That is why they gained members until they attracted the attention of Constantine. He realized they had enough members that he could use them and adopted their religion and eventually the others were outlawed. The essay missed the question of his the church grew big enough to get his attention.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Good point. Professor Taboo, who has commented here, is sort of an expert on said topic-formation of the Church under Constantine, I mean. click onto his blog. His posts are detailed and very informative.


    • Here’s a link to one of the Prof’s pieces on Saul. It’s in two parts and is superb, IMO. Check it out, and ask him any questions you may have on the matter. He’s learned and takes great time answering them. Oh, and tell him to pay back the $657,000 he borrowed from me. I’m startin’ ta git pissed about it now!


    • I have done a bit of reading on the Roman Empire from 100 C.E. forward and the history of Christianity.

      My point is Constatine could not have made something out of nothing. It was the largest group in Rome before he joined.

      They had kicked all the Jews out long before then. That was what Paul and his followers did. By Constantine’s time, I don’t think it was small, struggling or Jewish.

      It had grown powerful enough that Constantine had to embrace it.

      The question is why did it outgrow all the other small sects and religions. I think it was because of how the members banded together as I described in my earlier post.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I’m truly not the person to hold debates with about this era or this topic. I take your word on what you say and believe you know a lot more than I on the issue. I simply found this piece, which I did not write, nor particularly wish to defend, interesting. However, if you’ve questions or opinions about this topic, and you wish to discuss them, I directed you to someone far more knowledgeable about them than I. Not everything in life is meant to be an argument. I understand what you wrote. I’m just not the person to be arguing the conclusions the author of this piece comes to. I don’t know enough, and I take you on your word that you do. In other words. I find your opinion to very, very valid.
      I’m sorry if something about my directing you to Professor Taboo’s blog was taken poorly, misinterpreted, or indicted I doubted or did not understand you. He’s a very intelligent man, as you are, I’m sure, who spends a lot of time researching and writing about issues related to the history of Christianity and, since you seemed interested in the topic, and knowledgeable about it, I thought you might be interested in what he has written on it. And, I thought others might be interested in the essay I’ve linked here on the topic, so, that’s why I put it in the post. Again, thanks for reading.


    • Thanks. Enjoyed reading the essay. Interesting subject.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Ahhh, another nice addition to my growing, LARGE multi-faceted library of work on this historical time-period. Thank you kindly Jeff.

    As you’ve probably read from me previously several times, Rome and Hellenistic culture and the long tradition of Greco-Roman Apotheosis are essentially the driving force of Paul’s/Saul’s Christology then Constantine thru Theodosius II — the backing of Imperial Rome — put an otherwise nascent, struggling Jewish Sect(s) “The Way” (Essene?) on the map permanently for sociopolitical control. The religion/myth called Christianity really has LITTLE to do at all with the actual Jesus the Galilean. HAH! Go figure, huh? 🙄😄

    Liked by 2 people

    • THAT, I always found easy to believe, but, like Scottie, I, too, once saw no reason NOT to think a “real” rabbi named Yeshua, who a “Jesus Christ is god” myth was built around., once existed. Now, I am strongly starting to think no such a person ever really did. Like Thor, Osiris, or Zeus, Jesus is simply a god created entirely of myth, no real, human guy is the basis for the creation of the myth any more than one is the basis for Odin or The Great Golden Boot of Ass-Kickers. Saul/Paul most certainly created the “god” Jesus Christians worship today, or at least GREATLY added to said myth as to own authorship of it. Just always seemed to me some real preacher dude MUST have existed first and the myth sprung from him. Now, to that, I gotta say, “Naw. He didn’t.”

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I have slowly gone from thinking there must have been one or a few humans the stories are based on to thinking Jesus was totally made up. It simply makes no sense that a person did exist as it would have to have been three or four different people and none of them doing the same things. So I am of the mind that I am a Jesus mythist. I will read the rest of the essay later. Hugs

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Nice find. The essay is a bit long to fully consume right now, but this excerpt stood out for me:

    But not even a single historian mentions the resurrection until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then it is only by Christian historians. Of the anonymous Gospel authors, only “Luke” even claims to be writing history, and none of them ever cite any other sources or show signs of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy, are completely unknown, and overtly declare their bias towards persuading new converts.

    Finally, the Roman Civil War could not have proceeded as it did if Caesar had not physically crossed the Rubicon with his army into Italy and captured Rome. Yet the only thing necessary to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief — a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon. Carrier concludes that while we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of them are lacking in the case of the resurrection:

    Liked by 3 people

  5. I like the conclusion: There comes a point when it no longer makes sense to give Jesus the benefit of a doubt. Even if we make allowances for legendary accretion, pious fraud, the criteria of embarrassment, doctrinal disputes, scribal errors and faults in translation, there are simply too many problems to the default position that assumes there simply had to be a historical individual (or more than one!) at the center of Christianity

    Liked by 7 people

  6. Thanks for posting this gem of a small (book) essay. Comprehensive, but you just don’t know how to interpret $cripture. There’$ one glaring thing mi$$ing.

    Liked by 5 people

  7. Thanks for sharing.
    Will create time for it. It looks interesting

    Liked by 4 people

    • I think you’ll find it interesting.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I loved it. Matches with other works I have read on Jesus and really buttresses my mythicist position.
      Thanks again, Jeff

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yeah, like I stated elsewhere, I’ve never given much thought to Yeshua NOT being a real guy that Christianity was built around. But, the more I’m reading work like this and that of guys like Richard Carrier, the more I’m seeing there really is no more need for a real “Jesus” to have existed than there is for a real Heracles or Hera to have existed. They didn’t, and, now, I’m coming to believe a life model “Jesus” who Christianity is based on, didn’t either. At least, there’s no reason he HAD to have. But, at the end of the day, I really don’t care all that much as it doesn’t affect my life in any way. Well, except to give me fascinating stuff to read. Oh, look up a picture of Harpo Marx and put it next to one of Richard Carrier and tell me if they aren’t clones of each other. 🙂


    • When one reads such essays and other scholarly works, you are left wondering how someone can still believe in a real Jesus?

      Liked by 1 person

Comments can be left for free, but cost $7.50 to take.

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.