Historical Jesus

[Lumpenproletariat]

Was Jesus Christ a DIFFERENT "Jesus" than the one who was the son of Mary and brother of James?

continued from:

Rejection of Jesus at Nazareth

Was Jesus the son of Mary & Joseph? with 4 brothers, including James?

Mark 6:1-6

He left that place and came to his home town, and his disciples followed him. 2 On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, ‘Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offence at him. 4 Then Jesus said to them, ‘Prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house.’ 5 And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. 6 And he was amazed at their unbelief.

This is the main source for the tradition that Jesus was the son of Mary & Joseph and had 4 brothers, including the famous James, who was leader of the early Jerusalem church.

This same list of brothers is repeated in Matthew 13:54-58, who calls Jesus "the carpenter's son," while in the Luke version these names are omitted, but the father Joseph is named.

There is some reason to believe the Luke version (4:16-30) might be earlier, or at least contains some additional earlier information. In the Luke version the disciples are not mentioned, and so might not have been with Jesus in the episode, and also Matthew is unclear about the presence of the disciples. What if they were not present?

There is reason to question whether it was really Jesus (Christ) who was the subject of this event. And also whether he was really the son of Mary & Joseph and had 4 brothers.

There was definitely a tradition that Jesus was the brother of James, as early as the Paul epistles, where James is called "the brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1:19). The other main connection of Jesus to Mary & Joseph is Acts 1:14, which identifies Mary as "the mother of Jesus." Also in Josephus there is a reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." These are the sources connecting Jesus to James and Mary. The connection to James is earlier, with the references in Paul. There's no other connection of Jesus to Mary & Joseph except the later Bethlehem stories.


The problem of "the other Mary"

There's reason to doubt the connection of Jesus to Mary & Joseph:

The Mary mentioned above, in the Nazareth story, appears at the crucifixion scene. All 3 synoptic gospels put her there, and yet none of them identifies her as the mother of Jesus, though they do identify her as the mother of the two brothers James and Joses. How can the accounts omit the fact that she is the mother of Jesus who is being crucified in front of her, a short distance away?

Here are the three accounts of the crucifixion-burial scene with Mary nearby looking on. Mary is mentioned as one of the women from Galilee, who had come with him to Jerusalem:

Matthew 27:55-61

55 Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and had provided for him. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. 58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 59 So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.

She's called "the mother of James and Joseph" and in vs. 61 "the other Mary." Why is she not also identified as "the mother of Jesus"? How could they casually identify her as "the other Mary" if she is the mother of Jesus?

Mark 15:40-47

40 There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41 These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem.

42 When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. 45 When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid.

Here she's called "Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses," and in vs. 47 "Mary the mother of Joses."

In Luke the same women are mentioned as part of the resurrection account, returning from the empty tomb:

Luke 24:9-10

9 and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles.

Here she's called "Mary the mother of James."

In the John account, mention is made of the mother of Jesus being present at the crucifixion, but her name is not mentioned. The John author appears to not know the name "Mary" as the mother of Jesus, though he does know the "Joseph" name (1:45).

This "Mary" at the crucifixion has to be the same Mary mentioned in the rejection-at-Nazareth story. They're both obviously from Galilee, and both have sons named Joseph (Joses) and James. And the strange spelling "Joses" in Mark (6:3) is repeated in 15:40. It is too coincidental for these to be two different Marys. Also Mark's term "James the younger" leaves little doubt that this must be the same James who was later the Jerusalem church leader.

Of course there's confusion about the identification of the different "James" and "Mary" characters in the gospels and Acts. Different theories mix it up, trying to identify them one way or another. But there is no way to claim that the Mary and James and Joses in Mark 6:3 are not the same Mary and James and Joses of Mark 15 and Matthew 27 and Luke 24. The only reason to deny the connection is that it contradicts the tradition that Mary of Nazareth is the mother of Jesus. So to eliminate this contradiction, the effort is made to separate these two Marys into different characters. But there's no other basis for separating them. They are the same character if the text is taken straightforwardly.

In addition to the incompatible crucifixion scene, with Mary present, there is another indication that Jesus was not the son of Mary and brother of James.


Evidence that Jesus was not the brother of James: The Epistles of James and Jude

Toward the end of the New Testament there are two epistles, James and Jude, which are attributed to the two brothers James and Jude, sons of Mary, and supposedly brothers of Jesus.

And yet, neither of these epistles gives any identification of them as brothers of Jesus.

The James author identifies himself as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (1:1), but not as brother of Jesus.

And the Jude author identifies himself as "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James" (1:1), but not brother of Jesus.

Why? If Jude scores extra points by identifying with James as his brother, why not also with Jesus? This makes no sense if the two were brothers of Jesus. There's a good chance that both epistles are authentically from the two brothers James and Jude, sons of Mary. But if not, and they are pseudonymous, they still should identify the authors as brothers of Jesus, if it's true that the two were brothers of Jesus. If it's appropriate for Jude to be identified as brother of James, surely also both of them should be appropriately identified as brothers of Jesus, if they were his brothers. So probably they were not.

So there is good reason to disbelieve the tradition that Jesus was the brother of James and son of Mary. This tradition could easily have arisen during the 30s or 40s, during the development of the Jerusalem church, before the Paul epistles. Jesus attracted several Galilean women to him, during his activity in that region, and Mary from Nazareth was obviously one of these Galilean women who accompanied him on the trip to Jerusalem. Maybe she "adopted" him in some sense, or the idea emerged that he was one of her sons.

There is no way to reconcile the crucifixion scene, where she is present and yet is identified only as the mother of James and Joses, with the idea that she was the mother of Jesus. Or to reconcile the idea that James and Jude (Judas) were his brothers with the absence of any mention of it in the two epistles of James and Jude.

So, why isn't it a good possibility that what we have was a different "Jesus" appearing in Mark 6:1-6, the rejection-at-Nazareth episode? and in Luke 4:16-30? who could perform no miracle there and made excuses why he didn't have to? and was rebuked with the insult "Physician, heal thyself!"? who was the real son of Mary & Joseph and had the 4 brothers James and Simon and Joses (Joseph) and Judas (Jude)? a different "Jesus" than the one who did miracles in Capernaum and other places and traveled to Jerusalem where he was arrested and crucified?


(This Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[angelo]

Alleluia! It still lives! [the thread I mean]

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Much of the historical record, including the Jesus miracle acts, is based on evidence, but NOT PROOF.

Correction: The claim = Jesus did perform the miracle acts. The refutation = "Miraculous acts have not been proven to happen despite numerous claims of miracles throughout history."

But there's evidence in some cases, such as this one.

Insufficient to prove your proposition.

You throw around the word "prove" as if everything from history has been proved as an absolute certainty. Don't you understand that most of our recognized history has NOT been "proved" with certainty?

There IS sufficient evidence to "prove" the resurrection and other miracles of Jesus, in a loose sense of "prove" -- like there's sufficient evidence to "prove" much of our accepted history. But MOST of this recorded history can be disputed, especially the part 1000+ years ago. There is EVIDENCE, but not usually "proof" beyond any doubt.

So there IS sufficient evidence for the proposition that the miracle acts of Jesus did happen, just as there is for most of our historical facts from that period. There IS evidence in this case, and probably some others, that a miracle event happened, making it credible, but not strict PROOF. We do not demand absolute proof in order to have a historical record of facts supported by evidence. Some of that historical record will probably turn out NOT to be true, because there's so much more that is not yet known.

And it's reasonable to put miracle claims into a separate category, needing extra evidence, having a higher burden of proof. But you cannot arbitrarily exclude them, claiming they're not "proven," as though all other facts of history have been "proven" -- they have not been.

Your phrase "not been proven to happen" is ambiguous.

It just means that the available information does not provide evidence that sufficient to prove that the events and miracles being described by the gospel writers happened as described, . . .

Again you're having an orgasm with the word "prove" or "sufficient to prove" that it happened. MOST historical events (from 2000 years ago) have not been "proven" with certainty to have happened as described.

Again, the evidence we have for the miracles of Jesus is greater than for a large part of our historical record, prior to 1000 AD. Yes, there are major events, like the Caesar assassination etc. for which there is virtual "proof" that it happened. But that's the exception. Most of the billions of facts are not "proven" in that extreme sense. But there is evidence enough to make them likely. The miracles of Jesus are in that category. And there are probably a few other cases also, of some "miracle" claim here or there, for which there is serious evidence, even if such evidence is lacking for most such claims (maybe 99% of them).

. . . and not embellished or just based on hearsay without any form of critical investigation.

Again, you're demanding a standard for "proof" which is not applied to other historical facts. Many of the accepted historical facts (for 1000+ years ago) are "embellished" and MOST are based on hearsay without critical investigation. You're failing to give any reason why the Jesus facts (or miracle claims) have "not been proven" in any sense that could not also be said about most of the facts of history.

Depending upon your standard for proof, it could be said that a vast amount of the historical record is unproven. If the standard of proof is low enough to allow 70% or 80% or so of our accepted historical facts, then by that standard there are some events in the category of "miracle" which are proved. I.e., there is evidence that they happened.

Doesn't it come down to corroboration and probability?

Yes, it comes down to confirmation from extra sources/documents rather than relying on one source only, and also on the proximity of the source to the events reported.

And by this standard, the Jesus miracles are "corroborated" more than many/most of our facts of history from the period. We have 4 (5) sources for the Jesus events dated 30-70 years from the alleged events, which is better than what we have for most of our historical facts from that period.

One example (there's probably more I'm not aware of): the healing of the child of the Russian Czar by Rasputin the mad monk.

Given the level of credulity and faith associated with the mad monk, the probability is that no miracle happened

No, his credulity and the faith in him were very low.

The circumstances were such that we should have good contrary evidence, i.e., reports of fraud or fakery on his part, if this was what happened and he had no real power to heal the child. Rasputin was hated by most of those near to the events, so there was little incentive from anyone to promote him, no disciples there to exaggerate or distort the report in his favor, which is the usual pattern with miracle claims about a healer-charlatan.

The Czarina became a devoted believer, but only after he had performed. If Rasputin had been a phony (as to the healing claims), those close to the events would have pressured the Czar & Czarina to expel him from his position of influence. There was far more opposition to him than sympathy. The best explanation is that he succeeded, and this is why they could not persuade the child's mother to get rid of the charlatan.


Have the experts disproved the Rasputin "miracle" healing reports?

http://time.com/4606775/5-myths-rasputin/
Desperate to find a cure for their ailing son’s hemophilia, one night they called upon Rasputin. After his session with the young boy, the bleeding seemed to stop for some time. Some historians, such as Pierre Gilliard, have speculated that the bleeding likely stopped as a result of Rasputin’s insistence on disallowing the administration of aspirin (a known blood-thinning agent), and not any “mystical” powers he may have had. The Tsarina was amazed, and immediately enlisted the services of Rasputin as a close adviser.

But there's no reason to believe aspirin had anything to do with it in most of the incidents where the child was successfully treated by Rasputin. Usually the doctors and the aspirin were not a factor.

The aspirin theory disregards most of the occasions when the child was successfully treated by Rasputin. The attraction of the Czarina to Rasputin was not dependent on only the one first encounter, even though this left a strong impression on her.

The aspirin theory is frequently offered, but no one has explained the logic of it. How often was the aspirin administered? This question has to be answered, because the theory assumes it was administered many times per day, maybe once or twice an hour, or every other hour, so that this could be disrupted by Rasputin, causing a noticeable change and thus give the impression that he magically caused relief to the child.


Questions not answered by the aspirin theorists

Do the harmful effects occur every time the aspirin is taken?

How much time normally passes, after the aspirin dose, before the harmful effects take place? I.e., does the change in the blood happen immediately and cause new pain in only 5 minutes? or 30 minutes? 5 hours? If it's hours later, how does Rasputin get credit for the change?

Was the aspirin administered only when the child suffered the pain? If so, what caused the pain in the first place? Or was it taken at regular intervals, whether there was pain or not?

If the aspirin was administered only 2 or 3 or 4 times a day, how does the child's favorable reaction get credited to Rasputin? If the aspirin had just been taken recently, and Rasputin shows up and kicks out the doctors, how does Rasputin get credited with the child recovering several hours later when the benefits first begin?

Or, if Rasputin shows up after the child had taken his aspirin several hours earlier and his next dose is coming due, is he not already showing signs of recovery, even before Rasputin shows up? What difference is happening at that point which could not be credited just as well to the doctors being expelled by Rasputin?

It makes no sense to say he insisted on "disallowing" the aspirin and suddenly the child started recovering. Unless you mean the aspirin is administered 3 or 4 times per hour or more, so the child is constantly being harmed by it, and then Rasputin breaks in and interrupts this to cause the child to suddenly recover. So the aspirin was being taken by the child 3 or 4 times per hour? and that's why it appeared that Rasputin caused the recovery, because he interrupted this on-going repeated infliction of more harm to the child?

None of this has been explained by those who suggest the aspirin theory. This theory is speculation only, based on virtually no evidence. They need to establish what the schedule was for the aspirin being administered to the child, and if each time he recovered it was due to Rasputin showing up and putting a stop to any new doses.

No such details about the aspirin doses have been provided to show any connection between the (non)occurrence of these doses and the child's recovery. And there's nothing to show that the aspirin was involved in most of the cases when the child was treated by Rasputin and did recover.

All we know is that on one occasion only he told them to stop the aspirin doses, and the child recovered, but even in that case we don't know when the next dose was scheduled. The child might have already started recovering anyway, shortly before the next dose was due. Or he would soon begin experiencing new harm from a dose 10 or 20 minutes earlier, in which case Rasputin might be blamed for causing the new pain to the child, starting just after he showed up.


Couldn't the witnesses figure out that it was the aspirin?

Some/most of the witnesses were skeptical and suspicious of Rasputin. They wouldn't suspect it if the aspirin each time had been the real cause? They wanted to debunk him, and so had a motive to look for a normal explanation. Wouldn't they notice the aspirin pattern?

Aspirin is removed --> child recovers each time, but

Aspirin doses continue --> child continues suffering in pain each time.

Those present are too retarded to notice the causal connection? If you assume there was such a repeated causal event happening, making it appear Rasputin was performing a miracle cure, then you're proposing a scenario obvious enough that some witnesses present could not fail to notice the connection to the repeated aspirin doses and then the sudden removal of these as a factor.

None of this has been dealt with by those who propose the aspirin theory.

What persuaded the Czarina if not Rasputin's success? Her main interest in him was not a fascination with his personality, but his success in treating her son. If he had no success other than 1 or 2 cases where he took away the aspirin, how can that explain her extreme insistence on keeping him despite all his negative features? Why would she imagine his treatment succeeded if it did not? Why did she persist in keeping him near, despite all the political damage he was doing, unless he was producing real results, even without the aspirin being a factor?

By winning her favor, this unattractive character was kept close to the rulers and given a high position of influence over affairs. It's impossible to explain this if he was not successful in treating the child. On many occasions where the aspirin was not a factor.

Maybe the Czarina became a "true believer" in him after only one incident, when he lucked out by removing the aspirin at just the right moment -- coincidence. But others also confirmed the apparent healing events, long after the first encounter with him. Why were they convinced, after the aspirin was no longer the cause?

Virtually all miracle story hoaxes are due to the attractive personality of the miracle-worker, or healer, who persuades the admirers who want to believe in him, and even the disbelievers are impressed by the healer's charisma. But this cannot explain Rasputin, who was the opposite -- unattractive.

There's no evidence for the aspirin theory, but only speculation. The evidence we do have, from witnesses mostly unfavorable to Rasputin, shows that he did something to cause relief to the child. But this is not proof, so you can reject it because such miracle cures contradict your ideology, and the evidence is not 100% certain (or 99% or 89%). Like most historical facts are not 100% certain. And for almost all reported facts you can substitute alternative theories of what might really have happened, and replace the reported facts with your substitute version as a possibility.


Other superhuman events or acts for which there is evidence

There have probably been a few other cases in history of a "miracle" act of some kind for which there is serious evidence. But the number is probably very low; while for the vast majority of such reported cases there is not credible evidence, or virtually none.

Similar to "miracle" claims, there are also proven cases of people who have power to perform some acts which normal humans cannot do. These are a tiny fraction of humans -- usually called "savants" -- who perform acts which cannot be learned by others, being beyond anything which can be taught or which one can train for.

E.g., an innate ability to play the piano keyboard, far beyond normal human capability, and to instantly perform math computations impossible for normal humans without a computer or calculator. These are virtually the same as "miracle" acts, except that each such performer is limited to one very specific kind of act and is usually unable to perform other acts than this one, or is deficient in performing other normal acts.

So far these cases defy scientific explanation. No one has been able to duplicate their performance, by using any technique or learning or instilling the ability into someone. Such cases as this also indicate a kind of superhuman power similar to the "miracle" or "supernatural" kind, except that these "savant" cases are repeatable examples, so that the performer is able to demonstrate or prove that the power exists.

The "savant" cases prove the fallacy in claiming that "miracle" events are impossible. Rather, there is a possibility of some such events, or acts, and we must rely on the empirical evidence or reports of such happenings, and judge each case individually, from the reports or sources, rather than dismissing all such claims with dogmas about such events being impossible only because they are beyond normal human capability or experience.

 

[Lion IRC]

But there's evidence in some cases, such as this one.

Insufficient to prove your proposition.

You throw around the word "prove" as if everything from history has been proved as an absolute certainty. Don't you understand that most of our recognized history has NOT been "proved" with certainty

Exactly !

I want "proof" that Socrates was a real person.

 

[angelo]

There is ample proof Socrates existed, as for many others who left tangible evidence. The evidence for a Jesus existing outside of the N/T is zilch!

 

[DrZoidberg]

But there's evidence in some cases, such as this one.

Insufficient to prove your proposition.

You throw around the word "prove" as if everything from history has been proved as an absolute certainty. Don't you understand that most of our recognized history has NOT been "proved" with certainty

Exactly !

I want "proof" that Socrates was a real person.

Why? Nobody cares if Socrates really lived or not. It's his ideas that matter. Only. It's quite possible that Plato made him up. Since Plato is the only source for Socrates we have. It is unlikely though, since the ideas are brilliant. Why wouldn't Plato attribute them to himself? Just out of vanity. But nobody really cares. This is mentioned in every lecture or text ever written about Socrates. Which you would know if you could be bothered to read about it. Also, the character described by Plato is believable. It's not flattering and there's no miracles to be found.

We all know that a person called Homer did not write the Illiad and the Odyssey. We still attribute them to him for ease. Why can't we have the same attitude toward Jesus?

No, it shouldn't matter whether Jesus was a real person or a fictional character. Some people care a lot about whether or not he really existed and in what form he really had. As if we could ever know. It's absurd, but there you have it.

What's even more absurd is that some people have decided, in spite of the lack of evidence, to believe that the Biblical Jesus was a real person. I have no idea why? But religious people do a lot of crazy things.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There IS sufficient evidence to "prove" the resurrection and other miracles of Jesus, in a loose sense of "prove" --.

Can you find a historian talking about history being proven in a 'loose' sense of 'prove?'

WTF does that even mean?

I'd guess it means you find the evidence compelling, but then, you accepted the conclusion before you evaluated the evidence. So it's kind of a meaningless claim.

 

[iolo]

There is ample proof Socrates existed, as for many others who left tangible evidence. The evidence for a Jesus existing outside of the N/T is zilch!

Plato was a major figure in the Athenian aristocracy, and Xenophon was a famous general, both in the leading cultured city in the Mediterranean, and but for them we wouldn't know much - and they disagree in the picture they give. What enormous Martian plot do you suppose created a revolutionary myth in Occupied Palestine, and who exactly stood to benefit from making it up and spreading it?

 

[Horatio Parker]

IIRC there are four contemporaneous sources for Socrates.

None for Jesus.

Also, Socrates is said to have once remained standing motionless in a trance for 24 continuous hours. Not exactly miraculous, but it was considered to be evidence of his superior mental powers.

 

[Keith&Co.]

IIRC there are four contemporaneous sources for Socrates.

None for Jesus.

Also, Socrates is said to have once remained standing motionless in a trance for 24 continuous hours. Not exactly miraculous, but it was considered to be evidence of his superior mental powers.

But what's the point of doing a manikin challenge before youtube?

 

[DrZoidberg]

IIRC there are four contemporaneous sources for Socrates.

None for Jesus.

Also, Socrates is said to have once remained standing motionless in a trance for 24 continuous hours. Not exactly miraculous, but it was considered to be evidence of his superior mental powers.

But what's the point of doing a manikin challenge before youtube?

That perhaps explains why he could do it for 24 hours. Without video evidence 24 minutes can easily be turned into 24 hours.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

But there's evidence in some cases, such as this one.

Insufficient to prove your proposition.

You throw around the word "prove" as if everything from history has been proved as an absolute certainty. Don't you understand that most of our recognized history has NOT been "proved" with certainty

Exactly !

I want "proof" that Socrates was a real person.

Why? Nobody cares if Socrates really lived or not. It's his ideas that matter.

No, it also matters whether he existed. Obviously you can "doubt" virtually anything, if we carry it to extremes. But we'd have to throw out too much history if we doubt even that Socrates existed. He's not in the same category as King Arthur e.g.

Only. It's quite possible that Plato made him up. Since Plato is the only source for Socrates we have.

No, there are other sources:

It is also clear from other writings and historical artifacts, that Socrates was not simply a character, nor an invention, of Plato. The testimony of Xenophon and Aristotle, alongside some of Aristophanes' work (especially The Clouds), is useful in fleshing out a perception of Socrates beyond Plato's work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

For 99% of the characters in the historical record we have proof that they existed. Like Jesus and Socrates. But much of the details about them is doubted.

"Doubt" in the sense of Will Durant: "History is mostly guessing -- the rest is prejudice." He probably did not mean to doubt the existence of Socrates. We're not "guessing" when we assume he existed.

Rather, much of history is in the less-than-certain category. But it's still reasonable to believe it, as probable. We don't need certainty or 100% proof in order to believe it as probable.

So one must to do better than complain that something in history is in the "not proven" category. I.e., for many of the facts in the historical record there is less evidence than there is for the miracles of Jesus. I.e., even if this is "not proven" it doesn't make it less credible than much of the historical record which is commonly accepted as probable even though it's "not proven."

 

[Horatio Parker]

IIRC there are four contemporaneous sources for Socrates.

None for Jesus.

Also, Socrates is said to have once remained standing motionless in a trance for 24 continuous hours. Not exactly miraculous, but it was considered to be evidence of his superior mental powers.

But what's the point of doing a manikin challenge before youtube?

Focus, man, focus.

 

[James Brown]

The level of evidence needed for the existence of Socrates is lower than the level needed that Jesus resurrected from the dead.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Some threads are titled "Historical Jesus." Some are titled "Is Jesus a Myth or Historical?" Like so many others, the title of this thread should be "Will the Real Fictional Jesus Please Stand Up?"

 

[Lion IRC]

There is ample proof Socrates existed, as for many others who left tangible evidence. The evidence for a Jesus existing outside of the N/T is zilch!

So there is evidence for Jesus.
That's what you're saying.
You're saying that apart from the evidence, there's no other evidence.

Somebody should have told those NT writers not to call it "the NT"
Why, why, WHY !!!
Why did so many people have to pay so much attention to that pesky thing called "The NT"?
Why couldn't they have ignored it and simply let it remain just another boring bit of text from antiquity.

...then we could treat it like every other historical document.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Jesus was essentially a nobody with a limited local influence for a short time period. One wouldn't expect there to be anything beyond thin and trivial evidence of his existence. We don't know if Steve the goat-herder who lived down the street from Jesus existed either, because it's unlikely that anybody would bother to record that he did. Those like Socrates and Hercules who had an influence during their lifetime had people mention them and record what they did and not wait a couple of generations to bring them up in a conversation.

It's really a pointless debate because there's nothing to give an answer to the question of whether the Jesus stories are actually based on a real guy or not.

 

[Lion IRC]

The level of evidence needed for the existence of Socrates is lower than the level needed that Jesus resurrected from the dead.

See there's your problem.

The bible is historical evidence that people sincerely believed they had witnessed miracles.
You don't have to believe in actual miracles - just do what the climate change and holocaust deniers do. You just tell yourself they were deluded or hallucinating or lying. Simple.

But this Jesus Myther conspiracy theory is even more extraordinary than the lesser claim that Gospel writers were honestly mistaken.

 

[Lion IRC]

IIRC there are four contemporaneous sources for Socrates.

None for Jesus.

Also, Socrates is said to have once remained standing motionless in a trance for 24 continuous hours. Not exactly miraculous, but it was considered to be evidence of his superior mental powers.

Define 'contemporaneous'.

Socrates - 470 BC
Oldest extant text referring to Socrates - 900 AD
That's a 1200 year gap!

The Gospel manuscripts are much closer (in years) to the events they report than that.

 

[Horatio Parker]

IIRC there are four contemporaneous sources for Socrates.

None for Jesus.

Also, Socrates is said to have once remained standing motionless in a trance for 24 continuous hours. Not exactly miraculous, but it was considered to be evidence of his superior mental powers.

Define 'contemporaneous'.

Socrates - 470 BC
Oldest extant text referring to Socrates - 900 AD
That's a 1200 year gap!

The Gospel manuscripts are much closer (in years) to the events they report than that.

Recorded during the lifetime of. IOW, there are accounts from four people who wrote about Socrates while both they and their subject were alive.

There are no written eyewitness accounts of Jesus, except by anonymous authors and those date from years after he was dead.