Did Jesus exist? (Poll)

[ruby sparks]

Hi,

Mostly to satisfy my own curiosity about the views of other members of what to me is a new forum, I'd be interested to know what people think in relation to the above question.

In strict terms, the question is, 'do you think that the figure called Jesus existed?' This allows for cases where someone thinks the name itself was added later, but would allow for a figure who at least existed and did at least some of the things attributed to the figure given that name.

Feel free to vote and to post any additional comments.

This is not meant to contribute to the cases for and against, nor is it meant to be a place to discuss the cases in detail. There's another thread for that:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...rrier’s-“On-the-Historicity-of-Jesus”-now-out

If you comment, you may, optionally, choose to identify as an atheist, an agnostic or as a theist, in general terms.

Thanks,

RS

 

[rousseau]

If I had to guess I'd say he probably was a historical person, but my guess would be completely irrelevant to anything because the fact is I just don't know. I haven't seen or heard of conclusive evidence one way or another so what I think happened is completely worthless information and only serves to misinform other people.

 

[funinspace]

Ah, the periodic mythicist verses historical poll...

I'm in the "I think it's more likely, to some degree or other, that he likely existed than not" camp. There is probably less Jesus reality in the NT than there was William Wallace reality in the Braveheart movie; and sandwiched between probably more Jesus reality, than there is Jason reality in Jason and the Golden Fleece.

As my profile says: functional atheist; theoretical agnostic

 

[ruby sparks]

Thanks to those who voted so far.

I voted 'I think it more likely than not that he existed'.

I'm a hardcore atheist.

It's a private poll, and no one has to declare their degree of belief or disbelief in god, by the way, unless they want to.

 

[beero1000]

I voted 'more likely than not to have existed' as well, and I've posted to that effect in threads before.

I'm not an expert in the field, so I rely on the conclusions of experts in the field to inform my opinion. From everything I've read, there is no real debate; historians and biblical scholars virtually all agree that there was a historical Jesus. A person, a preacher, with that name, at that time period, in that place, not necessarily the whole miracle/god/supernatural bit. That's not a popular opinion on this board, for obvious reasons, and I get that it can be an emotionally charged topic for people, but the arguments I've seen so far contrary to the historicity of Jesus have been disappointing. They're the same type of arguments you see from climate change denialists, antivaccine advocates, and conspiracy theorists and definitely don't rise to the level of convincing me to ignore the opinions of experts, academics who've spent their careers studying this exact topic.

 

[abaddon]

I'm agnostic-atheist. I'm inclined to think there was likely a figure, though it might have been several persons (or views of a sect) that got lumped into one man, that served as the template of what became "Jesus". I picked "more likely he existed" because "no opinion" isn't true -- it's a wild guess but it is an opinion.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok so I think that's 4 declared for 'more likely than not existed' so far....but one of the 4 votes has turned up in the 'more likely than not didn't exist'

Apologies if the wording of my poll questions is confusing. It's my first ever poll.

 

[abaddon]

Ok so I think that's 4 declared for 'more likely than not existed' so far....but one of the 4 votes has turned up in the 'more likely than not didn't exist'

Apologies if the wording of my poll questions is confusing. It's my first ever poll.

That's my fault. I posted before voting, then moved on and had forgot to cast my vote. But came back and voted.

I think the wording is very clear.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok so I think that's 4 declared for 'more likely than not existed' so far....but one of the 4 votes has turned up in the 'more likely than not didn't exist'

Apologies if the wording of my poll questions is confusing. It's my first ever poll.

That's my fault. I posted before voting, then moved on and had forgot to cast my vote. But came back and voted.

I think the wording is very clear.

No prob. I'll see if I can fix it, with your permission. If not, I'll just note it if I ever do a tally.

ETA: No, I think I misunderstood you there. When I highlighted it, you hadn't voted. Now you have. No need to adjust anything.

 

[abaddon]

When I highlighted it, you hadn't voted. Now you have. No need to adjust anything.

Yes. If the numbers all match up now, then it should all be set right.

 

[ruby sparks]

When I highlighted it, you hadn't voted. Now you have. No need to adjust anything.

Yes. If the numbers all match up now, then it should all be set right.

Yes, all numbers correct now I believe.

 

[Tharmas]

I picked “None of the Above” because I think the question (whether there was “a” real person behind the stories) is a complicated one. I don’t think the Gospels represent narrative history in the modern sense at all. I agree with  Burton_L._Mack that there are a number of different “traditions” discernable in the Gospels, perhaps representing different communities of believers, including an apocalyptic prophet, a political rebel, a spiritual guru, etc. Were these representative of different individuals as well?

Even in the time of Paul (pre Gospel) there seem to be different traditions extant, as he complains about other preachers preaching false doctrine.

An intriguing theory (to me at least) is that of  Alvar_Ellegård, who posits a “real” prototypical Jesus who lived in the previous century to the Jesus of the Gospels.

In any case, what interests me is the creation and growth of myth and trying to discern the historical reality beneath, if any.

Oh, and Hi Ruby!

 

[whollygoats]

I like Tharmas' measured response. I, too, found Ellegard's hypothesis intriguing. Have you read Father Thomas Brodie's Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus? I'm steeling myself to attempt his Birthing of the New Testament: Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings, which I have in hand. To date, I've just been skimming it.

I fall in the "I think it's more likely, to some degree or other, that he didn't exist" camp...aka 'mythicist'.

I refer to myself as a militant agnostic; "I don't know, and neither do you." I think it makes me a functional atheist.

 

[ruby sparks]

I picked “None of the Above” because I think the question (whether there was “a” real person behind the stories) is a complicated one. I don’t think the Gospels represent narrative history in the modern sense at all. I agree with  Burton_L._Mack that there are a number of different “traditions” discernable in the Gospels, perhaps representing different communities of believers, including an apocalyptic prophet, a political rebel, a spiritual guru, etc. Were these representative of different individuals as well?

Even in the time of Paul (pre Gospel) there seem to be different traditions extant, as he complains about other preachers preaching false doctrine.

An intriguing theory (to me at least) is that of  Alvar_Ellegård, who posits a “real” prototypical Jesus who lived in the previous century to the Jesus of the Gospels.

In any case, what interests me is the creation and growth of myth and trying to discern the historical reality beneath, if any.

Oh, and Hi Ruby!

Hi Tharmas.

Yes, those are interesting theories. Another was put to me by a guy called Daniel Unterbrink on another forum. I came to the conclusion that it was ropey, but a watered-down or amended version of it, which involved a case of mistaken identity, did seem fascinating.

On the whole though, I have a recurring suspicion....that ....too much of a mountain is being made out of a molehill. I half suspect it's rather simple. Some guy existed. The fact that it's very hard to work out exactly what he ever did, deeply troubled a few nervous bible scholars a couple of hundred years ago, and some atheists have taken up the baton and made too much of a meal out of it all. And I say that having spent an arguably ridiculous and embarrassing amount of time at the feast myself.

 

[bilby]

The question is poorly formed and, as a result, meaningless.

The answer depends upon exactly what minimum set of alleged attributes need to be present for a person to qualify as Jesus; and the question includes the information that the name 'Jesus' is one of the attributes that we may choose to discard - implying that attributes normally intimately entwined with personhood are up for grabs, but providing no details of which ones (other than name).

Did there exist a man in first century Judea whose father was a carpenter? Almost certainly, many such men existed.

Were any born out of wedlock, in a place usually used for keeping animals? Perhaps.

And in Bethlehem? Again, it's possible. But not knowable.

Was there ever a carpenter's son in the Middle East who became a radical religious preacher with a small but devoted following, who was executed by the authorities? It would be astonishing if there wasn't at any time in the last few thousand years - and likely there's more than one around today who will meet that end.

Did there exist at any place and time a supernatural being? Certainly not.

Has any man existed who could walk on water, or change the chemical composition of bulk liquids as Jesus is reputed to have done? Nope.

Have people survived being crucified? Yes.

Have people returned to life after dying? No.

The answer to the question depends upon too many unknown elements of an individual's opinion as to what qualifies a person as 'Jesus'.

It's a meaningless question; no wonder it gets argued about ad-nauseam.

Even if you could come up with a complete and definitive description of what constitutes 'Jesus', the only likely answers (given the paucity of archaeological and historical evidence) are 'No' - if the definition includes physically impossible elements such as miracle working or resurrection); or 'We cannot know' - if the definition does not conflict with physical law. A definite 'Yes' is hard to come by even for the most banal definitions.

 

[sharon45]

I'm sure the idiot didn't exist.

 

[whollygoats]

Sure, he and his buddy, Jorge, come every other Thursday to mow and blow the lawn at the rental unit next door.

....Not that Jesus, eh?

 

[SLD]

Most likely there is some historical figure named Jesus who was executed by the romans for sedition in the early first century. The problem becomes in relating that person to the character depicted in the four canonical gospels. That person is pretty obviously fictional.

SLD

 

[DBT]

I voted yes. I think that there was a charismatic Preacher/Rabbi, Yeshua Ben Joseph, as the kernel upon which the legend was built.

 

[bilby]

"Kent" is a common enough surname; "Clark" is a common enough first name; And newspaper reporters were pretty numerous in US cities in the 1930s. So it would be foolhardy in the extreme to claim that there was no historical Clark Kent, reporter for a large newspaper in an American Metropolis.

However, assuming that we could, by dint of diligent research, establish that one or more such people really did exist, we would STILL be no closer to proving the existence of Superman. For that, we need evidence that at least one of those Clark Kents was more powerful than a locomotive; Faster than a speeding bullet; Or able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Proving that one of them was Clark Joseph Kent, who had adoptive parents called Jonathan and Martha, and was raised in Kansas, despite making the similarity between the man and the story seem spookily close, does not in fact constitute evidence that bolsters any claim that Superman was a real person.

In the same way, any evidence that we might find for a person similar to the person described as 'Jesus' in the gospels, is not in any way evidence for a real messiah.

What makes Jesus the Christ different is not the Jesus; it's the Christ. And no amount of spookily Jesus-like biographies, records, or archaeological finds, no matter how compellingly similar to, or supportive of, the biographies usually touted for this character they might be, can demonstrate the existence of the Christ, for the exact same reason that no amount of Clark Kents can demonstrate the existence of Superman.