Historical Jesus

[none]

I don't know I'm just asking for evidence for a historical Jesus, if such a person existed that isn't myth

 

[Jobar]

I'm also of the opinion that the myth became a man, rather than a man becoming the myth. It just seems to make more sense of the texts we have, to me.

I've often been accused of arguing for mythicism because it makes being an atheist easier, but that simply isn't true. I'm a historicist when it comes to Buddha, and I do think there was an historical Mohammad, though I don't know near as much about the origins of Islam as I do about Christianity.

 

[angelo]

The whole Jesus saga is little more than myth historicised. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is not a shred of tangible evidence besides the N/T which never claims to be more than faith based.

It's an ancient tale in the Hubbard and Scientology mold of more recent times. Or Joseph Smith and the Morons..........er.......sorry......Mormons.

 

[Jobar]

Something Lion (hi, Lion) said a few weeks ago-

Well, that's because being a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim doesn't stop you from being a scientist...

Absolutely.

But I would argue that it goes further than just a coincidental connection.

Surely there's something like a sort of numinous awe about the act of discovery which keeps us searching the 'horizon' of the unknown.

And when I listen to scientists like Carl Sagan, Brian Cox, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, etc. talking (existentially) about that horizon, I can't help but smile. Do they know how 'religious' they sound?

Do you think this qualifies as religious, Lion? I certainly consider it awesome and uplifting- but is it religious?

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes. Unborn ghosts.

And to his credit he doesn't attempt to completely disavow himself of what you might call the religious/spiritual psyche which persists to some degree even in strong atheists. I think he would chalk it up to cultural/anthropological vestiges. He isn't embarrassed to admit that he might be prone to some irrational superstitions - like fear of wearing the clothes of mass murderer after they were executed. (Would you avoid stepping on someone's grave?)

Dawkins is gonna convert on his deathbed I suspect like Hitchens probably did.

 

[Lion IRC]

Are you the Jobar from Secular Cafe?

 

[abaddon]

Do you think this qualifies as religious, Lion? I certainly consider it awesome and uplifting- but is it religious?

I would say not. Weird sentiment, very like "this water fits a pothole so perfectly" sort of "awe". Still I'm familiar with so-called "religious" feelings, as probably most everyone is whether religious or not. I want to jump in and present my take on this question.

Some would say for something to be religious, it needs to be theistic or supernaturalistic. Which is a weird stance since there are nontheist naturalist religious persons in various places on the globe so theism/supernaturalism cannot be the defining characteristics of religion. Buddhism's an example of a religion where there's a question whether it's inherently supernaturalist or theistic or not, and thus if it's religious or not. Some fans want to admit it into the loftier status of "philosophy". Though, even if the Buddhist has no theistic or supernatural beliefs, he is still enacting rituals (usually as part of a group effort) to achieve a transcendent state or a relationship of self-and-world, which is a behavior few people would associate with secular philosophers.

Some would say something's religious if it includes feelings that are very like those traditionally associated with religion. That seems to be the stance of many naturalist pantheists. I disagree, because feelings are feelings and are bodily and thus prior to beliefs. There's nothing about the numinous or awe or even the perception of sacredness that requires any specific beliefs or behaviors.

Lately I've considered the one thing that distinguishes religions, which is universal among them all, is a set of behaviors meant to celebrate those objects and beliefs one finds worthy of reverence. To provide a contrast, consider that secular humanists don't cluster in groups to light candles to venerate humanity though they tend to have the feeling. So while feelings of veneration are shared with religious folk they don't enact those feelings in the same ritualistic sorts of behaviors, aside from occasional gatherings. The religious adopt rituals and practices to achieve transcendent states or an enhanced relation with "ultimate reality" (mysticism) or venerate the "ultimate reality" that they believe transcends them (an I-Thou worshipfulness).

So people have human feelings that got associated with religion only because religious people have historically focused on such feelings as very important. You see this in LionIRC's mistaken conflation of religiosity and scientific curiosity. More scientists were religious in the past because more people were religious in the past. So it was a coincidental correlation and not a cause-effect relation. It doesn't leave irreligious people with something less in the way of feelings... Why would it? Are they less human than religious people?

In sum, feelings like awe are human and not religious. The association with religion is only an accident of history. Maybe also an ideological prejudice against subjectivity plays a role in hushing talk that may sound "poetic" or "religious" and thus kind of embarrassing among persons who mistake "objective facts" and "truth" as the same thing.

 

[angelo]

Yes. Unborn ghosts.

And to his credit he doesn't attempt to completely disavow himself of what you might call the religious/spiritual psyche which persists to some degree even in strong atheists. I think he would chalk it up to cultural/anthropological vestiges. He isn't embarrassed to admit that he might be prone to some irrational superstitions - like fear of wearing the clothes of mass murderer after they were executed. (Would you avoid stepping on someone's grave?)

Dawkins is gonna convert on his deathbed I suspect like Hitchens probably did.

Why is this furphy about Hitchens converting on his death bed still doing the rounds? There's no basis at All for that claim. I also am 99.9% sure Dawkins won't convert on his deathbed!

 

[Jobar]

Are you the Jobar from Secular Cafe?

I am, yes.

I'd say that there's about as much chance of the Pope deconverting on his death bed, as there is of Dawkins converting...

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't know I'm just asking for evidence for a historical Jesus, if such a person existed that isn't myth

You can save everybody a lot of time if you present a list of all the references to Jesus of Nazareth which you won't accept as evidence. Eg.

- Won't accept anything written by [insert biased sources here]
- Won't accept anything that isn't signed and dated with the name, address and date of birth of author.
- Won't accept anything copied from an original document (even if it is an exact copy).
- Won't accept anything that corroborates another source (obviously a conspiracy).
- Won't accept anything which isn't corroborated. (can't be verified).
- Won't accept anything that contradicts other sources. (If they can't decide whether Jesus' robe was scarlet or purple it must be an invented myth).

Have I missed any? I'm sure you have many others.

 

[none]

I don't know I'm just asking for evidence for a historical Jesus, if such a person existed that isn't myth

You can save everybody a lot of time if you present a list of all the references to Jesus of Nazareth which you won't accept as evidence. Eg.

- Won't accept anything written by [insert biased sources here]
- Won't accept anything that isn't signed and dated with the name, address and date of birth of author.
- Won't accept anything copied from an original document (even if it is an exact copy).
- Won't accept anything that corroborates another source (obviously a conspiracy).
- Won't accept anything which isn't corroborated. (can't be verified).
- Won't accept anything that contradicts other sources. (If they can't decide whether Jesus' robe was scarlet or purple it must be an invented myth).

Have I missed any? I'm sure you have many others.

Or you could produce something credible

 

[beero1000]

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus person who existed and was executed. While I do have concerns of bias due to the religious backgrounds of those scholars, that's enough for me to defer to them.

On the other hand, so what? It doesn't make any of the fantastical elements of the Christian mythos more believable, any more than finding out that King Arthur was based on a real person would make me believe in magic swords or wizards.

 

[none]

What's enough for you to defer to them (theists?/believers? )?

 

[beero1000]

What's enough for you to defer to them (theists?/believers? )?

That the vast majority of scholars who have spent their lives studying the topic have concluded that the man Jesus actually existed. That's enough for me to take that as my default position, as I don't want to spend the time becoming an expert on the topic in order to make my own informed decision.

 

[none]

You can save everybody a lot of time if you present a list of all the references to Jesus of Nazareth which you won't accept as evidence. Eg.

- Won't accept anything written by [insert biased sources here]
- Won't accept anything that isn't signed and dated with the name, address and date of birth of author.
- Won't accept anything copied from an original document (even if it is an exact copy).
- Won't accept anything that corroborates another source (obviously a conspiracy).
- Won't accept anything which isn't corroborated. (can't be verified).
- Won't accept anything that contradicts other sources. (If they can't decide whether Jesus' robe was scarlet or purple it must be an invented myth).

Have I missed any? I'm sure you have many others.

Or you could produce something credible

If I don't believe it is credible evidence, what exactly am I not accepting as evidence??

 

[none]

What's enough for you to defer to them (theists?/believers? )?

That the vast majority of scholars who have spent their lives studying the topic have concluded that the man Jesus actually existed. That's enough for me to take that as my default position, as I don't want to spend the time becoming an expert on the topic in order to make my own informed decision.

So you believe that people believe in abiogenesis and evolution because it is well accepted by those that study it?
Do you believe in abiogenesis and evolution?

 

[beero1000]

That the vast majority of scholars who have spent their lives studying the topic have concluded that the man Jesus actually existed. That's enough for me to take that as my default position, as I don't want to spend the time becoming an expert on the topic in order to make my own informed decision.

So you believe that people believe in abiogenesis and evolution because it is well accepted by those that study it?
Do you believe in abiogenesis and evolution?

Most people believe most things because they are well accepted by those who study them - and absent evidence of real, pervasive, academic misconduct in the field, that's what they should do. This applies to science as well - even though it is built on the premise that anyone could, in theory, test any hypothesis for themselves - in practice, basically no one ever does.

Expertise is rare, and relying on your own inexpert opinions and amateur research is an easy way to be wrong. This is even more important when you have a preference for one side or the other - I want Jesus to be a made up mythical figure because religions are so ridiculous - and I could pretty easily cherry pick facts to support that. But that way is a path to the Dark side, to conspiracy theories and tin foil hats.

I try to be better than the climate change deniers, flat earthers, and vaccine/autism link proponents. If that means accepting that there was a real preacher called Jesus who live 2000 years ago and got crucified, so be it.

 

[none]

So you believe that people believe in abiogenesis and evolution because it is well accepted by those that study it?
Do you believe in abiogenesis and evolution?

Most people believe most things because they are well accepted by those who study it - and absent evidence of real, pervasive, academic misconduct in the field, that's what they should do. This applies to science as well - even though it is built on the premise that anyone could, in theory, test any hypothesis for themselves - in practice, basically no one ever does.

Expertise is rare, and relying on your own inexpert opinions and amateur research is an easy way to be wrong. This is even more important when you have a preference for one side or the other - I want Jesus to be a made up mythical figure because religions are so ridiculous - and I could pretty easily cherry pick facts to support that. But that way is a path to the Dark side, to conspiracy theories and tin foil hats.

I try to be better than the climate change deniers, flat earthers, and vaccine/autism link proponents. If that means accepting that there was a real preacher called Jesus who live 2000 years ago and got crucified, so be it.

Do you believe in abiogenesis and evolution?
What about electrons?
What's your criteria for believing in something to be true?

 

[bilby]

Most people believe most things because they are well accepted by those who study it - and absent evidence of real, pervasive, academic misconduct in the field, that's what they should do. This applies to science as well - even though it is built on the premise that anyone could, in theory, test any hypothesis for themselves - in practice, basically no one ever does.

Expertise is rare, and relying on your own inexpert opinions and amateur research is an easy way to be wrong. This is even more important when you have a preference for one side or the other - I want Jesus to be a made up mythical figure because religions are so ridiculous - and I could pretty easily cherry pick facts to support that. But that way is a path to the Dark side, to conspiracy theories and tin foil hats.

I try to be better than the climate change deniers, flat earthers, and vaccine/autism link proponents. If that means accepting that there was a real preacher called Jesus who live 2000 years ago and got crucified, so be it.

Do you believe in abiogenesis and evolution?
What about electrons?
What's your criteria for believing in something to be true?

Before it's reasonable to believe that something actually exists (or existed), first we must define what qualifies. Abiogenesis, evolution and electrons are clearly defined things. But 'Historical Jesus' is not - that entity has many different definitions, and often more than one within a single argument.

If we define 'historical Jesus' as 'any person born in Bethlehem between 50BCE and 50CE to a carpenter's girlfriend, who went on to become a preacher, and was executed by the Roman authorities', then it's perfectly plausible that there was at least one 'historical Jesus'. But if that's our definition, then the real question becomes 'who gives a crap?'.

For it to matter a damn whether or not the 'Jesus' character actually existed, it seems to me that the character needs to be an accurate fit to a much more detailed and specific description - and that that description must:

A) be agreed upon by all participants in the debate; and
B) include at least a large fraction of the traditional biography of 'Jesus'; in particular
C) at the very least one, and preferably several of the supernatural claims, such as performing of miracles and returning from the dead.

Any character who meets these criteria is highly unlikely to have actually existed; any 'Jesus' who meets only less stringent criteria for recognition as the historical Jesus, simply falls into the 'So what' basket.

If there was an historical Jesus who was just some ordinary bastard son of a carpenter's girlfriend, then why would anyone care?

This is a major problem when discussing things with theists - they refuse to be pinned down to a set of firm definitions, and then equivocate like crazy - which apparently confuses them enough to make them think they have proven something, even if it's not fooling anyone else.

Nobody cares whether there was really a reporter called 'Clark Kent' working at the Daily Planet. Unless, that is, he was also able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Clark Kent's historicity is trivial - reporters are two a penny. Superman's historicity is a much more important question - but it's also much more easy to refute. Christians want to have it both ways - they want to say that as Clark Kent is a plausible candidate for having been a really real person, therefore Jesus the Christ is equally plausible. That's a logical fallacy (or a piss-weak attempt at fraud, if they are being disingenuous rather than merely stupid).

 

[Lion IRC]

Or you could produce something credible

If I don't believe it is credible evidence, what exactly am I not accepting as evidence??

Apparently there is evidence - it's just that you don't find that evidence credible.
You don't believe the evidence. Fair enough.

The thing you're not accepting is the evidence. The reason you're not accepting it (the evidence) is because you don't believe it. Others do believe it. But it's still evidence of something.

Are melting glaciers evidence? Yes. Evidence of man-made global warming? Maybe.