Did Jesus exist? (Poll)

[whollygoats]

So, if Peter Parker was based on somebody real, then Spiderman is real?

 

[none]

yeah, it's internally consistent

 

[whollygoats]

Thing is, it usually goes, "If Peter Parker is based on somebody real, Jesus is real."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, there was apparently a soldier who was the inspiration for the Rambo character. So, Jesus is real in the same way that Rambo is real.

And lets not forget about Babe the blue ox.

 

[none]

well?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, if Peter Parker was based on somebody real, then Spiderman is real?

It's a first step. If you're claiming that there is a person with superpowers, that can be broken down to:

1) There is a person
2) That person has superpowers

#1 is a prerequisite of #2. You can't have someone with superpowers without first having a person. If you can show that a person exists, you can go onto talking about the traits of that person. Talking about those traits, however, is pointless without there actually being someone to have those traits.

 

[DBT]

The process can be seen with Gurus, etc, even now. They are built into more than human entities, endowed with special powers and abilities by their followers, fulfilling some deep seated needs in the followers while aggrandizing the figure of their adoration, their Guru.

 

[ruby sparks]

The process can be seen with Gurus, etc, even now. They are built into more than human entities, endowed with special powers and abilities by their followers, fulfilling some deep seated needs in the followers while aggrandizing the figure of their adoration, their Guru.

Yes, that's common when we are looking at religious gurus, especially, as appears to be the case here, recent ones (recent to the early writers, listeners and readers I mean). Putting the figure (dubiously, imo) into the genre of 'deliberately fictional characters' such as Peter Parker, Clark Kent and Rambo, mentioned above, obviously makes it easier to think of him as fictional, but that's just circular, unless you've made a good case for preferring 'deliberately invented fictional character' over 'supposedly recently deceased guru' (later embellished), which personally I don't think you readily can. Neither of those genres means anyone necessarily existed of course, it's only that in one of them, the figure generally is deemed to cross the line into reasonably, all things considered, being taken to be at least probably historical.

ETA: I appear to have broken my own 'rule' there and started discussing the case for and against here in this thread. So, apologies to those I chided for doing that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The process can be seen with Gurus, etc, even now. They are built into more than human entities, endowed with special powers and abilities by their followers, fulfilling some deep seated needs in the followers while aggrandizing the figure of their adoration, their Guru.

Yes, that's common when we are looking at religious gurus, especially, as appears to be the case here, recent ones (recent to the early writers, listeners and readers I mean). Putting the figure (dubiously, imo) into the genre of 'deliberately fictional characters' such as Peter Parker, Clark Kent and Rambo, mentioned above, obviously makes it easier to think of him as fictional, but that's just circular, unless you've made a good case for preferring 'deliberately invented fictional character' over 'supposedly recently deceased guru' (later embellished), which personally I don't think you readily can. Neither of those genres means anyone necessarily existed of course, it's only that in one of them, the figure generally is deemed to cross the line into reasonably, all things considered, being taken to be at least probably historical.

ETA: I appear to have broken my own 'rule' there and started discussing the case for and against here in this thread. So, apologies to those I chided for doing that.

We all forgive you.

We're talking heroic archtypes. What else is religion for? Did henotheistic Athenians ask if Athena existed?

I think it is intellectually dishonest if the protagonist in an obviously fictional account can become real so long as there is even the most remote resemblance to something actual. It just demonstrates a kind of hope, not reasoned observation. I say this as someone who has composed fiction and read much of the same.

There will always be that "inspired by actual events" in writing, but that doesn't make the characters, places and events history. I can find my Jesus and someone else can find their Shangri la. That's good.

Literary criticism is largely about authors, and we don't have gospel authors.

 

[whollygoats]

Literary criticism is largely about authors, and we don't have gospel authors.

Literary criticism? I thought we were engaged in Historical Criticism.

Historical criticism began in the 17th century and gained popular recognition in the 19th and 20th centuries. The perspective of the early historical critic was rooted in Protestant Reformation ideology since its approach to biblical studies was free from the influence of traditional interpretation. Where historical investigation was unavailable, historical criticism rested on philosophical and theological interpretation. With each passing century, historical criticism became refined into various methodologies used today: source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition criticism, canonical criticism, and related methodologies.

'Taint just 'literary' criticism.

 

[ruby sparks]

We're talking heroic archtypes. What else is religion for?

Lots more things that just that.

Did henotheistic Athenians ask if Athena existed?

I hate to disappoint you, but I don't think the hero archetype, or any other type of mythical model, is very appropriate either. Heroes and mythical characters are generally located in the dim and distant past compared to when we first read of them, and not even always in the real world, and they rarely if ever have attestations.

Several attestations to Jesus between about 25 years and about 85 years of his alleged existence arguably puts him in a different category straight away, imo, and makes him, as a figure, much more contemporaneous to citation than most similarly minor figures from ancient history, religious or otherwise. One can work one's socks off to try to dispute them all, but imo not very persuasively at the end of the day.

I think it is intellectually dishonest if the protagonist in an obviously fictional account can become real so long as there is even the most remote resemblance to something actual.

I'm not sure what you mean by obviously fictional or what texts you are thinking of, but if you only mean gospels as opposed to other types of text from among the hundreds of texts there are for early christianity, then accounts of miracles in gospels, for example, definitely does not necessarily mean fictional, especially for supposedly recent people. Accounts of miracles and people supposedly doing them are as common as muck in most religions throughout world history right up to the present time. Magic might be woo, but the existence of supposed religious magicians and faith healers isn't.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Britannica...
Historical criticism, literary criticism in the light of historical evidence or based on the context in which a work was written, including facts about the author’s life and the historical and social circumstances of the time.

my bold

We have mentions of Jesus by authors who were reporting here say. We have plenty of forgeries trying to make this Jesus a real person, as well as anonymous documents giving us lots of information about him.

From a standpoint of historical criticism we got diddly because even authorship is an invention.

 

[ruby sparks]

From a standpoint of historical criticism we got diddly because even authorship is an invention.

If I understand what you're trying to say, I don't think it's correct at all.

Even if all the citations were anonymous (which they're not) historians (and those doing 'Historical criticism' specifically) on any subject, still consider as relevant, "the text's historical origins, such as/the time, the place in which the text was written; its sources; and the events, dates, persons, places, things, and customs that are mentioned or implied in the text" (wiki) which makes sense, because accounts and texts of unknown authorship are not unusual for any period of ancient, medieval and even modern history. There are accounts of unknown authorship from WW2 for example and the bibliographies of academic history books often have 'author unknown'.

I think you're mixing up authenticity with authorship. How many of the authors of Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics do we know for example?

We surely can't just make up our own personal rules for the study of history and apply them as we like in a way that just suits us in any particular situation.

 

[whollygoats]

Yes, I think there is plenty of plumbing of the history of vast numbers of anonymously authored documents, and credible attempts to ascertain as much about their anonymous authors as possible.

 

[Juma]

Lots more things that just that.



I hate to disappoint you, but I don't think the hero archetype, or any other type of mythical model, is very appropriate either. Heroes and mythical characters are generally located in the dim and distant past compared to when we first read of them, and not even always in the real world, and they rarely if ever have attestations.

Several attestations to Jesus between about 25 years and about 85 years of his alleged existence arguably puts him in a different category straight away, imo, and makes him, as a figure, much more contemporaneous to citation than most similarly minor figures from ancient history, religious or otherwise. One can work one's socks off to try to dispute them all, but imo not very persuasively at the end of the day.

I think it is intellectually dishonest if the protagonist in an obviously fictional account can become real so long as there is even the most remote resemblance to something actual.

I'm not sure what you mean by obviously fictional or what texts you are thinking of, but if you only mean gospels as opposed to other types of text from among the hundreds of texts there are for early christianity, then accounts of miracles in gospels, for example, definitely does not necessarily mean fictional, especially for supposedly recent people. Accounts of miracles and people supposedly doing them are as common as muck in most religions throughout world history right up to the present time. Magic might be woo, but the existence of supposed religious magicians and faith healers isn't.

So if there was/is a reporter at a some newspaper superman is true?

 

[Learner]

So if there was/is a reporter at a some newspaper superman is true?

Although there have never been any historical reports of superman from Krypton (important to note). The report or reporter would have to be picked apart by thorough scholarly scrutiny. How much reported information do you propose there would be for superman anyway?

 

[southernhybrid]

There might have been an individual that inspired the Jesus myth. I really don't know and really don't care much. What is amazing to me, is that so many have been convinced that not only did this Jesus person exist, but he had supernatural powers and if you don't believe that, he and his dad, who are actually the same person, will send you to be tortured forever. I am a strong atheist that was raised by conservative Christians.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So if there was/is a reporter at a some newspaper superman is true?

Although there have never been any historical reports of superman from Krypton (important to note). The report or reporter would have to be picked apart by thorough scholarly scrutiny. How much reported information do you propose there would be for superman anyway?

Hey, if Superman didn't exist, explain how it is that Lois Lane managed to survive falling off of tall buildings so many times.

You can't, can you?

Frigging akryptonians and their closed minds.

 

[bilby]

So if there was/is a reporter at a some newspaper superman is true?

Although there have never been any historical reports of superman from Krypton (important to note). The report or reporter would have to be picked apart by thorough scholarly scrutiny. How much reported information do you propose there would be for superman anyway?

Of course there are historical reports of Superman from Krypton - if there were not, how could you possibly know that he comes from Krypton in the first place?

Of course, there are those who claim that DC Comics are purely fictional - but then, there are also those who claim that the Gospels are purely fictional too - And there's about as much evidence that the Gospels are non-fiction as there is that DC Comics are non-fiction.

The comparison may appear absurd to you, as a christian. But to me it appears completely apt - it is just as absurd and as unsupportable to believe that Jesus was real and could change water into wine as it is to believe that Superman was real and could leap tall buildings in a single bound. These two claims strike me as being very similar indeed - and each exactly as absurd as the other.

 

[ruby sparks]

So if there was/is a reporter at a some newspaper superman is true?

Although there have never been any historical reports of superman from Krypton (important to note). The report or reporter would have to be picked apart by thorough scholarly scrutiny. How much reported information do you propose there would be for superman anyway?

You are probably familiar with the fact that many atheists, including myself, have reservations about the objectivity of bible scholars. Or, if you mean scholars in general, including secular and Classical historians, then very few of the latter actually do much scrutiny on Jesus, and especially not on the events in his supposed life.

The experts on the topic are the bible scholars, and as I say, many atheist and secular readers have certain doubts about their impartiality. It should, in theory, still be possible to assess the scholarship on its own merits, but I don't find it that easy, for a number of reasons, including that it's almost impossible to spot pervasive hidden assumptions, or work around them.

This is true, imo, even if arguably to a much lesser extent, with Jewish scholars. It's also not unique to bible scholarship, obviously, given that nearly all historians have at least some biases and this might be especially true of ancient writers, even those now considered to be reasonably deserving of the term, 'historian' (which would not, imo, include the gospel writers). Also, it has to be noted that some modern scholars, albeit a minority, have views which are close to semi-ahistoricism and in a few cases, are ahistorical.

On the other hand, some people, particularly on atheist/secular internet forums, just don't seem, imo, to be capable of even approaching the topic in a reasonably intelligent way at the outset. Questions like Juma's are essentially just inane (and not even sensibly related to anything in the post he quoted, into the bargain), and general comparisons with comic book superheroes aren't a great deal better, quality-wise, imo, and about a hundred miles from 'completely apt'. To me, regardless of whether he existed or not, it's just crap and lazy rational skepticism (and/or historiography, take you pick), and that bugs me more than anything about whether some miracle-working preacher type guy who thought the end times were coming existed or didn't, as it would on any other topic whatsoever on this website.

No offence intended to whatever you believe about the Jesus you believe existed. I'm not assuming he existed and I'm not making moral judgements about him (or you) personally, if he did.