historicity of jesus

[Chris Mauro]

A psychologist view of Jesus. In Summary, if he existed he was insane. Which would make sense

The Psychological Make-up of Jesus


With the limited authentic information available to us, it is impossible to draw up a psychological profile of Jesus. But it is interesting to note that an uncritical appreciation of the reliability of the gospel accounts can lead to some rather bewildering (to Christians) conclusions about Jesus' inner psychology.

In the early years of the twentieth century some psychologists and psychiatrists such as Dr. Charles Binet-Sangle, Professor of Psychology at the University of Paris, Dr. J. Dagonet, a physician at St. Anne's Hospital in Paris and Dr. B. Ball, Professor of Mental Pathology in the Faculty of Medicine in Paris made various diagnosis about Jesus. Given below is a summary of their findings: [1]

Jesus suffered from theomania (excessive religious devotion) inherited through his parents' devoutness. Theomaniacs studied at the mental hospital at Charenton believe that they are called by God, and that they cannot be harmed and that they will live forever. Mystic visions are also very common among theomaniacs. Jesus seeing the dove coming down on him during his baptism (Mark 1:10-11) is the classic example of the type mystic vision experienced by theomaniacs. Dr. Dagonet noted that theomaniacs get very easily irritated and will not permit contradiction of their utterances, as Jesus was in Mark 3:5. They often speak in tones of authority. Dr. Ball pointed out that the great religious innovators of history, such as Martin Luther and Muhammad, have always been psychologically abnormal.



- Coupled with his theomania is his megalomania. After all, it is quite incompatible with a sound mind that Jesus would announce himself the future judge of the universe (John 5:27).



- Jesus suffered from the hallucinatory syndrome. This is proven by the numerous visions he experienced throughout his ministry: on his baptism where he saw the Holy Spirit and heard the voice of God (Mark 1:10-11); during his fact in the desert where he saw Satan himself (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-12); and in Gethsemane where he saw angels (Luke 22:43). Surely if anyone today tells us he has heard the voice of God, spoken to the devil and has seen angels, we would be hard put not to pronounce him deranged.



- He also suffered from dromomania (irrepressible wanderlust). This is evident from his frequent journeyings, from Nazareth to the banks of the Jordan, from there to the wilderness, then back to Nazareth, to Cana, to Capernaum, to Phoenicia, to Caesarea, to Samaria, to Judea etc.


A detailed analysis by the psychologists and psychiatrists of the sayings of Jesus showed that he was an egocentric maniac devoid of profundity of thought, incoherent and often amoral.


They also noted various physiological symptoms that point to an abnormal condition:

The sweat of blood at Gethsemane (Luke 22:44) shows a defect in his vaso-motor system and is in reality a facial hematidrosis.

The forty day fast in the desert (Matthew 4:2; Luke 4:2) shows that Jesus had problems with his digestive system. The forty day fast was actually an attack of sitiophobia.


The fact that Jesus was incapable of carrying the cross himself (Mark 15:21; Matthew 27:32; Luke 23:26) and the pleuro-tubercular effusion revealed by the lance-thrust (John 19:34) shows that Jesus had problems with his respiratory organs as well.


Jesus probably had problems with his genital organs as well. We get psychological hints from Jesus' encouragement of castration (Matthew 19:12) and his glorification of sterility (Luke 23:29).


Jesus also suffered from Oedipism or a tendency to engage self-mutilation. This is evidenced from his advise to his to his followers to pluck their eyes and cut their hands to avoid sinning. (Matthew 5:29-30)


And finally we have the testimony from his family, his mother and brothers (Mark 3:21) and his enemies (Mark 3:22), who all thought that he was mad.


In short the psychologists and psychiatrists thought Jesus as a typical psychotic, a visionary, a paranoid and a megalomaniac. With diseases of the digestive system, the lungs and the genitals, he wasn't too healthy either!


It would be wrong to criticize the competence of these esteemed thinkers in the field of psychopathology. Their diagnosis of Jesus is invalid for a different reason: their lack of appreciation of source criticism. That is to say, they do not understand that most of the actions and sayings attributed to Jesus by the gospels are not historical and were actually supplied by the early Christian tradition.

It should be mentioned that my disagreement with their diagnosis is no consolation to believers, especially those who accept everything spoken in the Bible as literally true; for then the psychopathological diagnosis cannot be so easily dismissed. It goes to show that a fundamentalist's acceptance of the complete veracity of the gospels accounts lead men trained in the field of psychopathology to conclude that Jesus was a sick madman!

Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Psychological Make-up of Jesus

 

[emoney]

What about Josephus

What about him?

 

[Chris Mauro]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (6 members and 0 guests)
Chris Mauro, @TAYLONDO SAMSWORTHY

I'm curious to know whats G unit's own Hot Rod's opinion is on the matter

 

[TAYLONDO SAMSWORTHY]

I'm curious to know whats G unit's own Hot Rod's opinion is on the matter

The Bible = Aesop's Fables

 

[Chris Mauro]

The Bible = Aesop's Fables

 

[TAYLONDO SAMSWORTHY]

 

[ATLien]

Had to read Celsus in 10th grade

Celsus' view of Christians and Christianity

...there's so many holes in this thread.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The fact remains that there is ZERO evidence of this Jesus character's existence outside of Biblical and Koranic accounts.

Wrong......

Tacitus - ANNALS

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

~The Annals, Book 15 Chapter 44

I don't think this qualifies as a 'comic book' considering this was a Roman History Book.

In case you wish to use Richard Carrier's objection to Tacitus' writing, you might want to check with this person......

James Rives

There is no interpolation of text. The only scholars that leveled that charge were Charles Saumagne in 1964 and Herbert W. Benario in 1970. Benario used Saumagne's work as a referent for his work, but Saumagne's work depended on Book 6 of The Histories as written by Tacitus after The Annals......but Book 6 doesn't exist so is not a firm foundation upon which to claim that Tacitus' work was edited/interpolated/forged by overzealous Christians or Sulpicius Severus. All arguments against the authenticity of the writing stem from Saumagne and Benario.​

 

[Chris Mauro]

Wrong......

Tacitus - ANNALS



I don't think this qualifies as a 'comic book'.

In case you wish to use Richard Carrier's objection to Tacitus' writing, you might want to check with this person......

James Rives

There is no interpolation of text. The only scholars that leveled that charge were Charles Saumagne in 1964 and Herbert W. Benario in 1970. Benario used Saumagne's work as a referent for his work, but Saumagne's work depended on Book 6 of The Histories as written by Tacitus after The Annals......but Book 6 doesn't exist so is not a firm foundation upon which to claim that Tacitus' work was edited/interpolated by overzealous Christians or Sulpicius Severus.​

Whether this particular man who claimed to be god/had followers and was executed existed or not (the likelihood is probably actually very high because there have been plenty people like that throughout Earth's history), is it wise for us to throw away everything we know about science, the psychological evolution of religious ideas and how the world works to follow the literal interpretation of events that's laid out in the christian ideology?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Whether this particular man who claimed to be god/had followers and was executed existed or not (the likelihood is probably actually very high because there have been plenty people like that throughout Earth's history), is it wise for us to throw away everything we know about science, the psychological evolution of religious ideas and how the world works to follow the literal interpretation of events that's laid out in the christian ideology?

Dude existed. There's no reason for him to be written of anywhere aside from the New Testament and Qu'ran. There was only this one dude that is referred to, no one else.

The vast majority of 'believers' think that science is one of 'G-d's' tools. Each discovery is 'G-d' revealing Itself to them so this supposed 'war' that rages between believers and non doesn't really exist. They'd be the last people to throw science in the bushes.​

 

[Chris Mauro]

Dude existed. There's no reason for him to be written of anywhere aside from the New Testament and Qu'ran. There was only this one dude that is referred to, no one else.

The vast majority of 'believers' think that science is one of 'G-d's' tools. Each discovery is 'G-d' revealing Itself to them so this supposed 'war' that rages between believers and non doesn't really exist. They'd be the last people to throw science in the bushes.​

Well, the belief that Jesus was God himself, performed miracles and rose from the dead kinda contradicts what we know to be humanly possible through science.


The literal interpretation of the story as told from the orthodox christian doctrine is what rational people have an issue with. Bringing people back from the dead, healing blindness....etc



We have no beef with the fact that some hippy who lived two thousand years ago had followers and preached a Buddhist like philosophy. That's not an impossible occurrence at all and happens all the time. There's no real evidence to support the belief that he was anything more than that other than delusional writings from stone aged men. (if he did exist)

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Well, the belief that Jesus was God himself, performed miracles and rose from the dead kinda contradicts what we know to be humanly possible through science.

Not really considering no one knows what 'Gzd' is. We also know 'miracles' happen, we just refer to them as 'scientific anomalies' and people have 'come back from the dead' a few times in recent history.

The literal interpretation of the story as told from the orthodox christian doctrine is what rational people have an issue with.

Early Christian writers actually warned other followers (and non-believers) NOT to do the very thing you're talking about......

In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.

We have no beef with the fact that some hippy who lived two thousand years ago had followers and preached a Buddhist like philosophy. That's not an impossible occurrence at all and happens all the time. There's no real evidence to support the belief that he was anything more than that other than delusional writings from stone aged men. (if he did exist)

I've never suggested otherwise.....and he DID exist.
​

 

[intilectual recipricol]

Dude existed. There's no reason for him to be written of anywhere aside from the New Testament and Qu'ran. There was only this one dude that is referred to, no one else.

The vast majority of 'believers' think that science is one of 'G-d's' tools. Each discovery is 'G-d' revealing Itself to them so this supposed 'war' that rages between believers and non doesn't really exist. They'd be the last people to throw science in the bushes.​

Tacitus - Iron Chariots Wiki

Tacitus is inconclusive. Also, again, Tacitus was not [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Tacitus-Annals-XI-XII-Classical-Library/dp/0674993454"]writing DURING the time[/ame] this supposed man lived, thus all he could have been doing is reporting 2nd hand information at best.

I will admit, however, that I probably should have tightened my OP up as it leaves openings for people to suggest Tacitus et al. However, the evidences still would need to pass scrutiny.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Tacitus - Iron Chariots Wiki

Tacitus is inconclusive. Also, again, Tacitus was not writing DURING the time this supposed man lived, thus all he could have been doing is reporting 2nd hand information at best.

Your objection is without merit. No one of any standing at that time was written of while they lived. Jesus had NO standing.....but is recorded in Roman History alongside Emperors/Kings. Also, Thiessen and Merz' objection based on calling Pilate a 'procurator' rather than a 'prefect' is spurious. Those titles were interchangeable.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate#Titles_and_duties

Pontius Pilate's title was traditionally thought to have been procurator, since Tacitus speaks of him as such. However, an inscription on a limestone block known as the Pilate Stone — a dedication to Tiberius Caesar Augustus — that was discovered in 1961 in the ruins of an amphitheater at Caesarea Maritima refers to Pilate as "Prefect of Judaea".

The title used by the governors of the region varied over the period of the New Testament. When Samaria, Judea proper and Idumea were first amalgamated into the Roman Judaea Province (which some modern historians spell Iudaea), from AD 6 to the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt in 66, officials of the Equestrian order (the lower rank of governors) governed. They held the Roman title of prefect until Herod Agrippa I was named King of the Jews in 41 by Claudius. After Herod Agrippa's death in 44, when Iudaea reverted to direct Roman rule, the governor held the title procurator. When applied to governors, this term procurator, otherwise used for financial officers, connotes no difference in rank or function from the title known as prefect. Contemporary archaeological finds and documents such as the Pilate Inscription from Caesarea attest to the governor's more accurate official title only for the years 6 through 41: prefect. The logical conclusion is that texts that identify Pilate as procurator are more likely following Tacitus or are unaware of the pre-44 practice.

'Procurator' was the current term in-use around 90 BCE.....when the first Gospels were written. It would only make sense to use the words people at the time were familiar with if I was writing something for them to read.
​

 

[intilectual recipricol]

Your objection is without merit. No one of any standing at that time was written of while they lived. Jesus had NO standing.....but is recorded in Roman History alongside Emperors/Kings. Also, Thiessen and Merz' objection based on calling Pilate a 'procurator' rather than a 'prefect' is spurious. Those titles were interchangeable.
​

No, you are incorrect. My argument isnt that the piece was written after death... although the particular piece in question was nearly a century after the supposed time period, it is that the AUTHOR WAS NOT ALIVE DURING THE TIME PERIOD. Therefore they are not a primary source, period. Timaeus the historian, lived 345 BC to 250 BC his work on the Punic Wars (264 BC - 146 BC) would have been a primary source since he would have witnessed it himself, and thus is a credible source on the topic.

Without any other corroborating evidence, 2nd hand or 3rd hand reports ought be handled accordingly, not necessarily dismissed but taken for what its worth. That there was a man named Jesus is not peculiar at all, hell, the bible even has at least two that were crucified. And it suggests that there may have been many nikkaz named Jesus runnin round gettin nailed to crosses. But that doesnt show that the particular one existed.