• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Historical Jesus

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,133
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQMJR2BP1w&feature=youtu.be[/YOUTUBE]

The atheist (infidel Guy) is trying at least although it is quite amusing.
 

abaddon

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
2,081
Location
USA
The atheist (infidel Guy) is trying at least although it is quite amusing.
Infidel Guy did very well. It's the imbecile historian that he interviewed who was a flop.

"We don't have anything that exists until after he died, allegedly, right? asked the Infidel Guy.
"About him, you mean?" responded the historian.
"Yeah, about Jesus".
"Yeah that's true of everyone!" answers the historian, and giggles. The comments about how everyone might as well deny Julius Caesar or even The Holocaust are errors as well. He's trying to lend weight to highly doubtful documents using false equivalencies.

Judging by this vid, it's looking like the supposition of an historical Jesus is just that, and if it's true and not a lie that most historians accept an historical Jesus then that's because they're ok with supposing shit just because the name turns up.

It's disappointing. If there were a real Jesus, I'd be interested in knowing what's known of him. But, apparently we're just stuck with the same-old-same-old: Why would people write gospels starring Jesus, or Paul make even casual mentions of Jesus, if it there weren't a dude? So all this thread is just some stupid quibbling over how well the gospels and Paul compare with other historical documents? Bummer. Because none of it's news at all.

And what is it with these people who put Youtube videos up anyway? Their titles NEVER describe the content of the vid. It's always a declaration that their personal dig has been vindicated; but it's never true. "Atheist Stumped by Overwhelming Evidence for Jesus' Existence". Umm, nope, false. And then there are all the people who've been "DESTROYED!!!" by someone or other... But it's never true. It's always someone reading a vindication of their beliefs into something where it just doesn't exist.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,133
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
Infidel Guy did very well. It's the imbecile historian that he interviewed who was a flop.

Sure If you say so. I particularly used this because it was Bart Erhman himself who has ironically debated against Christian apologetics like William Craig Lane. He answered every question to Mr. Infidel with a somewhat stunned surprise perhaps not expecting Erhman to disagree with him.

"We don't have anything that exists until after he died, allegedly, right? asked the Infidel Guy.
"About him, you mean?" responded the historian.
"Yeah, about Jesus".
"Yeah that's true of everyone!" answers the historian, and giggles. The comments about how everyone might as well deny Julius Caesar or even The Holocaust are errors as well. He's trying to lend weight to highly doubtful documents using false equivalencies.

These are not false equivalencies . The example is ; history of those times is accepted with much less written about than Jesus.
Judging by this vid, it's looking like the supposition of an historical Jesus is just that, and if it's true and not a lie that most historians accept an historical Jesus then that's because they're ok with supposing shit just because the name turns up.

The important bit then is "Most" historians if not all. You and I can make of it as we see it.

And what is it with these people who put Youtube videos up anyway? Their titles NEVER describe the content of the vid. It's always a declaration that their personal dig has been vindicated; but it's never true. "Atheist Stumped by Overwhelming Evidence for Jesus' Existence". Umm, nope, false. And then there are all the people who've been "DESTROYED!!!" by someone or other... But it's never true. It's always someone reading a vindication of their beliefs into something where it just doesn't exist.

I wasn't concerned about the title of the vid and believe it or not I wouldn't think you'd take such a title seriously .
 
Last edited:

Juma

Gone
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
4,782
Location
Sweden
Basic Beliefs
Sceptic
In a couple of generations from now Christopher Hitchens might be more famous than he was when alive.
People will argue about which of his sayings were authentic and which were literal or figurative.
Did he convert (back) to Judaism on his deathbed?
Did he doubt his own atheism?
Was he pro-life?
How much did he really love the KJV bible.
Did he think women/wives ought to be homemakers and husbands the bread winners?

And as time passes it will gradually become easier and easier to transform him and his deeds into suprahistorical events.

FWIW - Christians don't think it is a 'slur' against Hitchens that he may have considered God and/or converted in his final weeks/days. To call that an attack on his integrity would be like saying every atheist (free thinker) who converts to religion ought to feel shame.
CS Lewis, Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, Antony Flew, Malcolm Muggeridge, Lee Strobel

...Paul Jones

View attachment 10759

Hm. Of course there are athesists that become christians. Whh fo you even have to bring that up?
You know, people arent born religious.

The question is: is there atheists that has rationally grounded there atheism and THEN became christians?
I dont think so.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,133
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
Chris White has a pretty good go refuting the idea.

[YOUTUBE]
https://youtu.be/lF89l3k6hkQ [/YOUTUBE]

A plan that goes against the Romans ,their way of life and their gods doesn't make sense!
 
Last edited:

abaddon

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
2,081
Location
USA
The important bit then is "Most" historians if not all. You and I can make of it as we see it.
No, the important bit is supposing. It's supposition if they're saying "there's not enough reason to believe there was no one named Jesus who served as a starting point for the fantastical tales that people were concocting after his death". That the gospels are historical documents doesn't matter. The question is, how much of what's in them is true? Repeating "The writings are part of history" resolves nothing of significance. Repeating "I think there probably was a Jesus" means nothing. If it's an historian saying these things means nothing, he has to do more than just emit sounds from his face.

I wasn't concerned about the title of the vid and believe it or not I wouldn't think you'd take such a title seriously .
The title's an argument. Presenting it and commenting like you agree with it and then later saying "Don't take it seriously" is a very lame way to make an argument.

The title serves as an illustration of how unreliable anybody's brief comment on any video is.

By just linking a vid and adding a little comment, you 1) let someone else do your talking for you and 2) fail to demonstrate your comment has any relation to what's really in the video. It looks a lot like trying to make arguments but avoid putting your neck out.

If you summarize the vid, then even if you're projecting your own view onto what others said in the vid, that's YOU and your viewpoint there for people to address. That would be more like a conversation instead of just leaving falsehoods laying around like turds in the lawn.
 

credoconsolans

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
2,900
Location
Texas
Basic Beliefs
neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
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.

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus. I don't believe that his execution is anything they agree actually happened.

Plus that they agree there was an actual historical Jesus doesn't really mean anything. Yeshua was a common name. Carrier in his book can name a Jesus who lived at the exact same time as the biblical Jesus supposedly did, who was a preacher of sorts, who DIDN'T lead the life of the biblical Jesus but was killed.

That there is a scholarly consensus on the existence of a historical man named Jesus doesn't really help support the story of a historical Jesus a man the bible stories were based on.

It's more like historians 2000 years from now agreeing that there was a historical man named Jesus who mowed lawns in California for movie stars.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,808
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
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.

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus. I don't believe that his execution is anything they agree actually happened.

Plus that they agree there was an actual historical Jesus doesn't really mean anything. Yeshua was a common name. Carrier in his book can name a Jesus who lived at the exact same time as the biblical Jesus supposedly did, who was a preacher of sorts, who DIDN'T lead the life of the biblical Jesus but was killed.

That there is a scholarly consensus on the existence of a historical man named Jesus doesn't really help support the story of a historical Jesus a man the bible stories were based on.

It's more like historians 2000 years from now agreeing that there was a historical man named Jesus who mowed lawns in California for movie stars.
Scholarly consensus is horseshit unless it's backed up with evidence, which it isn't. Scholarly consensus once had the earth fixed and at the center of the universe.

There's a lot of money to be made with scholarly consensus, hence the scholarly consensus.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,133
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christian and Common Sense
No, the important bit is supposing. It's supposition if they're saying "there's not enough reason to believe there was no one named Jesus who served as a starting point for the fantastical tales that people were concocting after his death". That the gospels are historical documents doesn't matter. The question is, how much of what's in them is true? Repeating "The writings are part of history" resolves nothing of significance. Repeating "I think there probably was a Jesus" means nothing. If it's an historian saying these things means nothing, he has to do more than just emit sounds from his face.

As you would have heard from Erhman as I take a snippet from your previous mentioned quote "might as well deny Julius Caesar." (not that the context was what you mean't)


The title's an argument. Presenting it and commenting like you agree with it and then later saying "Don't take it seriously" is a very lame way to make an argument.

The title serves as an illustration of how unreliable anybody's brief comment on any video is.

One sentence in the previous post under the video is not agreeing with the title it was a sentence for the content. "Overwhelming" is exactly what I'd expect you to find issue with. If its a lame argument then I'll accept it , got to have a lamer once in a while.

By just linking a vid and adding a little comment, you 1) let someone else do your talking for you and 2) fail to demonstrate your comment has any relation to what's really in the video. It looks a lot like trying to make arguments but avoid putting your neck out.

If you summarize the vid, then even if you're projecting your own view onto what others said in the vid, that's YOU and your viewpoint there for people to address. That would be more like a conversation instead of just leaving falsehoods laying around like turds in the lawn.

Avoiding .. not at all .. people quote people in posts anyway .. If you look back at posts I've already posted throughout .. I hardly use videos unless there was an expertise to backup an argument. Besides nothing wrong posting vids if one finds interesting hearing the audio of interesting individuals speak imo.
 
Last edited:

credoconsolans

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
2,900
Location
Texas
Basic Beliefs
neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus. I don't believe that his execution is anything they agree actually happened.

Plus that they agree there was an actual historical Jesus doesn't really mean anything. Yeshua was a common name. Carrier in his book can name a Jesus who lived at the exact same time as the biblical Jesus supposedly did, who was a preacher of sorts, who DIDN'T lead the life of the biblical Jesus but was killed.

That there is a scholarly consensus on the existence of a historical man named Jesus doesn't really help support the story of a historical Jesus a man the bible stories were based on.

It's more like historians 2000 years from now agreeing that there was a historical man named Jesus who mowed lawns in California for movie stars.
Scholarly consensus is horseshit unless it's backed up with evidence, which it isn't. Scholarly consensus once had the earth fixed and at the center of the universe.

There's a lot of money to be made with scholarly consensus, hence the scholarly consensus.

I brought that up in a thread a year or so ago. If the "evidence" is basically hearsay, and there is no real proof, why don't historians/scholars say so?

Instead, we get this hedging. "A man named Jesus PROBABLY existed..."

Which gives bible thumpers all the ammo they need to take "a man named Jesus probably existing" and run with it to "Jesus the son of god existed so say all historians!"
 

beero1000

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
2,139
Location
Connecticut
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus. I don't believe that his execution is anything they agree actually happened.

Plus that they agree there was an actual historical Jesus doesn't really mean anything. Yeshua was a common name. Carrier in his book can name a Jesus who lived at the exact same time as the biblical Jesus supposedly did, who was a preacher of sorts, who DIDN'T lead the life of the biblical Jesus but was killed.

That there is a scholarly consensus on the existence of a historical man named Jesus doesn't really help support the story of a historical Jesus a man the bible stories were based on.

It's more like historians 2000 years from now agreeing that there was a historical man named Jesus who mowed lawns in California for movie stars.


wikipedia said:
Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Feel free to check the references on the wiki page  Historical reliability of the Gospels. There are more quotes and references here.

It's my understanding that the scholarly consensus is that there was an actual Jesus. I don't believe that his execution is anything they agree actually happened.

Plus that they agree there was an actual historical Jesus doesn't really mean anything. Yeshua was a common name. Carrier in his book can name a Jesus who lived at the exact same time as the biblical Jesus supposedly did, who was a preacher of sorts, who DIDN'T lead the life of the biblical Jesus but was killed.

That there is a scholarly consensus on the existence of a historical man named Jesus doesn't really help support the story of a historical Jesus a man the bible stories were based on.

It's more like historians 2000 years from now agreeing that there was a historical man named Jesus who mowed lawns in California for movie stars.
Scholarly consensus is horseshit unless it's backed up with evidence, which it isn't. Scholarly consensus once had the earth fixed and at the center of the universe.

There's a lot of money to be made with scholarly consensus, hence the scholarly consensus.

I'm not super interested in continuing to belabor this point. I just want to point out, one last time, that "From what I've read" or "The experts are wrong" or "Follow the money" or "People once thought the Earth was flat" is what conspiracy theorists say. Now you might think that that doesn't apply to your well thought out rationales and researched opinions, but conspiracy theorists think that too. The burden of evidence is much, much higher when your conclusion contradicts those of most PhDs whose research is focused on the subject. They laughed at Galileo, but they laughed at Bozo the Clown too. If you really think you have a convincing argument that contradicts the scholarly consensus, publish it and change the scholarly consensus - that's how it works.

Until then :boohoo:
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
But what do you mean by existed? Rambo is based on an actual person whom the writer knew and PTSD amongst Vietnam War veterans is a real thing. That doesn't make it somehow more of a biography than a fictional story, though. The Amityville Horror is "based on true events". That doesn't make any of the events in it true.

If the Bible doesn't tell a real person's story, the fact that it's loosely based on someone who might have done something similar doesn't make it an historical account of that guy.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,808
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
But what do you mean by existed? Rambo is based on an actual person whom the writer knew and PTSD amongst Vietnam War veterans is a real thing. That doesn't make it somehow more of a biography than a fictional story, though. The Amityville Horror is "based on true events". That doesn't make any of the events in it true.

If the Bible doesn't tell a real person's story, the fact that it's loosely based on someone who might have done something similar doesn't make it an historical account of that guy.
He's simply making an argument from authority, or maybe an argument from tradition, or maybe both.
 

beero1000

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
2,139
Location
Connecticut
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
But what do you mean by existed? Rambo is based on an actual person whom the writer knew and PTSD amongst Vietnam War veterans is a real thing. That doesn't make it somehow more of a biography than a fictional story, though. The Amityville Horror is "based on true events". That doesn't make any of the events in it true.

If the Bible doesn't tell a real person's story, the fact that it's loosely based on someone who might have done something similar doesn't make it an historical account of that guy.


From the link in the previous post:

Esteemed historical Jesus scholar E.P. Sanders of Duke University represents a consensus position when he writes that "There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity” (Sanders. The Historical Figure of Jesus.11.) Similarly, Luke Timothy Johnson writes that "Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death.", (Johnson, The Real Jesus. 121.) This is not to imply that all scholars agree about everything, but that scholars do not only just agree that Jesus lived but that a number of things can be said about him with a high degree of historical certainty.



But what do you mean by existed? Rambo is based on an actual person whom the writer knew and PTSD amongst Vietnam War veterans is a real thing. That doesn't make it somehow more of a biography than a fictional story, though. The Amityville Horror is "based on true events". That doesn't make any of the events in it true.

If the Bible doesn't tell a real person's story, the fact that it's loosely based on someone who might have done something similar doesn't make it an historical account of that guy.
He's simply making an argument from authority, or maybe an argument from tradition, or maybe both.

You're damn right I am.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority said:
A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, this is a Bayesian statement -- it is likely to be true, rather than necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true -- not prove it.
 

none

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,331
Location
outside
Basic Beliefs
atheist/ignostic
Pare it down a bit, what makes their belief likely to be true?
Years of reading the bible, fabricating evidence?
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,175
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
But what do you mean by existed? Rambo is based on an actual person whom the writer knew and PTSD amongst Vietnam War veterans is a real thing. That doesn't make it somehow more of a biography than a fictional story, though. The Amityville Horror is "based on true events". That doesn't make any of the events in it true.

If the Bible doesn't tell a real person's story, the fact that it's loosely based on someone who might have done something similar doesn't make it an historical account of that guy.

We know the Jesus story is bullshit because it is a hagiography. It was never intended to be accurate. Rambo II is a similar work. It's a propaganda piece, written to emphasise positives and without anything negative.
 

credoconsolans

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
2,900
Location
Texas
Basic Beliefs
neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.
Feel free to check the references on the wiki page Historical reliability of the Gospels. There are more quotes and references here.

I find that hard to believe considering historians only recently discovered Pontius Pilate the man actually existed. By one inscription on a dedication. I don't recall historians finding his library full of his records of his acts while serving in Judea.

Same thing with John the Baptist. I doubt he kept any records of who he baptized.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,808
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
But what do you mean by existed? Rambo is based on an actual person whom the writer knew and PTSD amongst Vietnam War veterans is a real thing. That doesn't make it somehow more of a biography than a fictional story, though. The Amityville Horror is "based on true events". That doesn't make any of the events in it true.

If the Bible doesn't tell a real person's story, the fact that it's loosely based on someone who might have done something similar doesn't make it an historical account of that guy.

We know the Jesus story is bullshit because it is a hagiography. It was never intended to be accurate. Rambo II is a similar work. It's a propaganda piece, written to emphasise positives and without anything negative.
And a story enforced by pain of death over millennia. Lots of selection pressure applied.
 

angelo

Deleted
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
12,904
Location
Western Australia
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.
Feel free to check the references on the wiki page Historical reliability of the Gospels. There are more quotes and references here.

I find that hard to believe considering historians only recently discovered Pontius Pilate the man actually existed. By one inscription on a dedication. I don't recall historians finding his library full of his records of his acts while serving in Judea.

Same thing with John the Baptist. I doubt he kept any records of who he baptized.

Is there evidence that a John the Baptist existed in history? Isn't his existence just as shadowy as the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth?
 

couch_sloth

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
342
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Atheist (weak)
I find that hard to believe considering historians only recently discovered Pontius Pilate the man actually existed. By one inscription on a dedication. I don't recall historians finding his library full of his records of his acts while serving in Judea.

Same thing with John the Baptist. I doubt he kept any records of who he baptized.

Is there evidence that a John the Baptist existed in history? Isn't his existence just as shadowy as the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth?
I suspect that John the Baptist was better known than Jesus, at the time the Christian religion was first being formed.
It seems to me that the main point the Gospels make about John the Baptist is that Jesus is much more, much greater, than John.
It could be that early on, Christians were dealing with admirers of John the Baptist who thought that John was at least on par with Jesus; or who thought that Jesus was just a copy-cat of John.
 
Last edited:

Horatio Parker

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,325
Location
Bronx, NY
Basic Beliefs
Platonist
It could be that early on, Christians were dealing with admirers of John the Baptist who thought that John was at least on par with Jesus; or that Jesus was just a copy-cat of John.

Robert Price theorized that John the Baptist had a following that Christians coopted by writing him into the gospels.
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,030
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
From the link in the previous post:

Esteemed historical Jesus scholar E.P. Sanders of Duke University represents a consensus position when he writes that "There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity” (Sanders. The Historical Figure of Jesus.11.) Similarly, Luke Timothy Johnson writes that "Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death.", (Johnson, The Real Jesus. 121.) This is not to imply that all scholars agree about everything, but that scholars do not only just agree that Jesus lived but that a number of things can be said about him with a high degree of historical certainty.

What is this evidence that he was crucified? I've never heard that one. We know that the story of the beginning of Jesus's life is wholly fictional. There was never this census which made people travel to their birth place and there's no evidence that a village full of children was ever ordered to be slaughtered by the Roman governor of the time. Having all of this interesting stuff happen around his birth makes for a much more compelling story, though, so it was added in to make him special. If they were going to add an interesting series of events to the beginning of his life, why not add an interesting series of events to the end of his life as well? Both shoehorn the guy into an old prophecy and emphasize how super-special he was and how the powers that be feared him and worked to thwart him, so aren't we all rebellious and daring to follow the man?

If Jesus was a real person, but the events in the Bible didn't actually happen to him and it's only loosely based on some things he did with a bunch of things that he didn't actually do tossed in as well, then Jesus is about as historical as the Amityville Horror. Sure, there's a house there, but that's where the historical accuracy ends.
 

Sarpedon

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
2,976
Location
MN, US
Basic Beliefs
the Philosophy of Not Giving a Damn
An esteemed Dr of Theology. Sorry, but Theology isn't History. A Theologian's work is premised on the idea that religion is true and that the study of religious texts and philosophy is a valid way to understand the universe. A Dr of Theology would no more question the existence of Jesus than an Accupuncturist would question the existence of Chi.

If you are making an argument from authority, I suggest you present an authority who is a historian, not a theologian.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,899
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I find that hard to believe considering historians only recently discovered Pontius Pilate the man actually existed. By one inscription on a dedication. I don't recall historians finding his library full of his records of his acts while serving in Judea.

Same thing with John the Baptist. I doubt he kept any records of who he baptized.

Is there evidence that a John the Baptist existed in history? Isn't his existence just as shadowy as the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth?

He must have been an interesting looking chap; During the Middle Ages, there were at least four different skulls of John the Baptist held by various monasteries. Either he had at least four heads, or we can reasonably conclude that the medieval church was full of lying liars who had no qualms about lying to support their claims - that's the same medieval church that first recorded the Bible on paper, by the way. Clearly we can take the word of these guys as gospel.
 

James Brown

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
3,572
Location
Texas
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Atheist
As the old saying goes, during the Middle Ages, enough churches held a sliver of Jesus' cross to reconstruct Noah's Ark.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,808
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Is there evidence that a John the Baptist existed in history? Isn't his existence just as shadowy as the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth?

He must have been an interesting looking chap; During the Middle Ages, there were at least four different skulls of John the Baptist held by various monasteries. Either he had at least four heads, or we can reasonably conclude that the medieval church was full of lying liars who had no qualms about lying to support their claims - that's the same medieval church that first recorded the Bible on paper, by the way. Clearly we can take the word of these guys as gospel.
These are the same churches that have vials of blood that come back to life.

Funny shit. But also profitable.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,175
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
An esteemed Dr of Theology. Sorry, but Theology isn't History. A Theologian's work is premised on the idea that religion is true and that the study of religious texts and philosophy is a valid way to understand the universe. A Dr of Theology would no more question the existence of Jesus than an Accupuncturist would question the existence of Chi.

If you are making an argument from authority, I suggest you present an authority who is a historian, not a theologian.

Yup. Theology is a non-subject. You can't study the nature of something that it's impossible to do any research on. It suffers from the same problem post-modernist feminist studies does. Since there's nothing to anchor it to the real world it'll always be nothing but word games and games of logic.

How about calling this type of research something more descriptive? "Hypothology"? "Speculology"? "alt-science-ology?"

To it's defence, all serious theological institutions aren't theological studies. Theology is only a tiny part of it. Most theological studies study the history, anthropology and psychology of religion. Fields of study with tangible evidence to work with. But then why insist on calling it theology? Why not call it "religious studies"?
 

angelo

Deleted
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
12,904
Location
Western Australia
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Is there evidence that a John the Baptist existed in history? Isn't his existence just as shadowy as the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth?

He must have been an interesting looking chap; During the Middle Ages, there were at least four different skulls of John the Baptist held by various monasteries. Either he had at least four heads, or we can reasonably conclude that the medieval church was full of lying liars who had no qualms about lying to support their claims - that's the same medieval church that first recorded the Bible on paper, by the way. Clearly we can take the word of these guys as gospel.

There are also so many pieces of the true cross in existence scattered around Catholicism to make twenty crosses. :p
 

angelo

Deleted
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
12,904
Location
Western Australia
Basic Beliefs
atheist
He must have been an interesting looking chap; During the Middle Ages, there were at least four different skulls of John the Baptist held by various monasteries. Either he had at least four heads, or we can reasonably conclude that the medieval church was full of lying liars who had no qualms about lying to support their claims - that's the same medieval church that first recorded the Bible on paper, by the way. Clearly we can take the word of these guys as gospel.
These are the same churches that have vials of blood that come back to life.

Funny shit. But also profitable.

St Genaro in a village close to Naples comes to mind. Once a year to celebrate this fraudulent priests birthday, [don't quote me on that] a vial of his solid blood is prayed to, and worshiped. If the solid dried blood liquifies, which magically does most times, everything will be fine and no disasters will ensure for the coming year. [Except when an earthquake strikes the countryside.]
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
For any reported events, if it's reported by a source closer to the event, that report is more credible.
So, Lumpy, thought of you. A nd your insistence that people closer to the time of Jesus would not be lying about Jesus.

I read this post in another thread:
I'm starting a pool on how long it takes for Trump to turn this story into one where he actually carried the firefighters out under each arm as the building collapsed behind him. I'm taking 2 years.
All that to say that I have been exposed to thousands of magas for a decade now and they tell the wildest tales about Trump. Egads. They share images of Trump painted to be young and cut and doing heroic shit or just looking heroic. It's hilarious but kind of a nightmare at the same time. Such delusion, and not only that but a sort of dynamic, constantly changing nebula of delusion as they add on more and more excuses and lies and fantasies. They add on wild embellishments from the first mention of some positive story about Trump. Ugh.


Trump is telling lies. Right now. About stuff that can be checked, about things in living memory.
People are telling lies about Trump. Right now. About stuff that can be checked, about things in living memory. About things we have video records of.
Lies do not need a hundred years or more in order to start developing. We can SEE this, right now. People lie about events they were at, or wish they had been at, or wish they hadn't been at.
Your entire defense of Jesus' historicity, built on the idea that at the base of every story, there must be SOME truth, is not reflected in the world we see around us. And never has been....
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,472
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The hysterical Jesus?
The bi polar schizophrenic Jesus?
The Jesus who thought he was the son if a god?

Many possible interpretations in the light of modern psychology.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,694
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
So, Lumpy, thought of you. A nd your insistence that people closer to the time of Jesus would not be lying about Jesus.

I read this post in another thread:
All that to say that I have been exposed to thousands of magas for a decade now and they tell the wildest tales about Trump. Egads. They share images of Trump painted to be young and cut and doing heroic shit or just looking heroic. It's hilarious but kind of a nightmare at the same time. Such delusion, and not only that but a sort of dynamic, constantly changing nebula of delusion as they add on more and more excuses and lies and fantasies. They add on wild embellishments from the first mention of some positive story about Trump. Ugh.


Trump is telling lies. Right now. About stuff that can be checked, about things in living memory.
People are telling lies about Trump. Right now. About stuff that can be checked, about things in living memory. About things we have video records of.
Lies do not need a hundred years or more in order to start developing. We can SEE this, right now. People lie about events they were at, or wish they had been at, or wish they hadn't been at.
Your entire defense of Jesus' historicity, built on the idea that at the base of every story, there must be SOME truth, is not reflected in the world we see around us. And never has been....

But there is some truth in the Trump stories. There is a Trump. At least he does exist. The stories about him are bullshit. That’s kind of how I see the historical Jesus too. I believe he did exist. The basics of the story are quite plausible. A Jewish peasant from a region know to be an anti Roman hotbed travels to Jerusalem and tries to ignite a revolt against Roman rule to re-establish the Dravidian line of kings only to find out too late that god was not on his side after all and the Romans kill him in a brutal fashion like they did all others.

We have to start with what we can establish as factual. And that is that within a generation of his supposed crucifixion, there are about a dozen biographies of him. There are letters being written about him circulating the Mediterranean world. What’s more plausible? That they all manufactured out of whole cloth what happened? Or, like the Trump stories, start with a historical figure and exaggerate what happened?

Granted we will likely never have hard evidence one way or the other, but I don’t see a complete mythical figure causing all this fuss within a generation of his death. A historical kernel of truth is more plausible.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,899
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
So, Lumpy, thought of you. A nd your insistence that people closer to the time of Jesus would not be lying about Jesus.

I read this post in another thread:
All that to say that I have been exposed to thousands of magas for a decade now and they tell the wildest tales about Trump. Egads. They share images of Trump painted to be young and cut and doing heroic shit or just looking heroic. It's hilarious but kind of a nightmare at the same time. Such delusion, and not only that but a sort of dynamic, constantly changing nebula of delusion as they add on more and more excuses and lies and fantasies. They add on wild embellishments from the first mention of some positive story about Trump. Ugh.


Trump is telling lies. Right now. About stuff that can be checked, about things in living memory.
People are telling lies about Trump. Right now. About stuff that can be checked, about things in living memory. About things we have video records of.
Lies do not need a hundred years or more in order to start developing. We can SEE this, right now. People lie about events they were at, or wish they had been at, or wish they hadn't been at.
Your entire defense of Jesus' historicity, built on the idea that at the base of every story, there must be SOME truth, is not reflected in the world we see around us. And never has been....

But there is some truth in the Trump stories. There is a Trump. At least he does exist. The stories about him are bullshit. That’s kind of how I see the historical Jesus too. I believe he did exist. The basics of the story are quite plausible. A Jewish peasant from a region know to be an anti Roman hotbed travels to Jerusalem and tries to ignite a revolt against Roman rule to re-establish the Dravidian line of kings only to find out too late that god was not on his side after all and the Romans kill him in a brutal fashion like they did all others.

We have to start with what we can establish as factual. And that is that within a generation of his supposed crucifixion, there are about a dozen biographies of him. There are letters being written about him circulating the Mediterranean world. What’s more plausible? That they all manufactured out of whole cloth what happened? Or, like the Trump stories, start with a historical figure and exaggerate what happened?

Granted we will likely never have hard evidence one way or the other, but I don’t see a complete mythical figure causing all this fuss within a generation of his death. A historical kernel of truth is more plausible.

Who gives a shit?

What possible difference would it make to anything whether Jesus is purely fictional, or based on a real person or persons?

It's unlikely that any fictional character is pure fiction. Superman is based on real people, which is why he looks like a Homo Sapiens, despite being from another planet. But what important changes does that knowledge make to our understanding of the life of Clark Kent? Or to our understanding of ourselves?

The whole question is back door Christianity - You cannot prove that Jesus isn't real, therefore not only am I justified in my faith, but I am justified in claiming that you're a believer too, and therefore it's perfectly reasonable for me to prohibit you from having an abortion. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. etc. etc.

Jesus is fictional. It's probably more important whether Superman is based on a real person than it is whether Jesus was. That is to say, neither question is even worth the effort of asking, unless in support of a hidden agenda.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,694
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
But there is some truth in the Trump stories. There is a Trump. At least he does exist. The stories about him are bullshit. That’s kind of how I see the historical Jesus too. I believe he did exist. The basics of the story are quite plausible. A Jewish peasant from a region know to be an anti Roman hotbed travels to Jerusalem and tries to ignite a revolt against Roman rule to re-establish the Dravidian line of kings only to find out too late that god was not on his side after all and the Romans kill him in a brutal fashion like they did all others.

We have to start with what we can establish as factual. And that is that within a generation of his supposed crucifixion, there are about a dozen biographies of him. There are letters being written about him circulating the Mediterranean world. What’s more plausible? That they all manufactured out of whole cloth what happened? Or, like the Trump stories, start with a historical figure and exaggerate what happened?

Granted we will likely never have hard evidence one way or the other, but I don’t see a complete mythical figure causing all this fuss within a generation of his death. A historical kernel of truth is more plausible.

Who gives a shit?

What possible difference would it make to anything whether Jesus is purely fictional, or based on a real person or persons?

It's unlikely that any fictional character is pure fiction. Superman is based on real people, which is why he looks like a Homo Sapiens, despite being from another planet. But what important changes does that knowledge make to our understanding of the life of Clark Kent? Or to our understanding of ourselves?

The whole question is back door Christianity - You cannot prove that Jesus isn't real, therefore not only am I justified in my faith, but I am justified in claiming that you're a believer too, and therefore it's perfectly reasonable for me to prohibit you from having an abortion. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. etc. etc.

Jesus is fictional. It's probably more important whether Superman is based on a real person than it is whether Jesus was. That is to say, neither question is even worth the effort of asking, unless in support of a hidden agenda.

My not so hidden agenda is to expose Christianity for what it is: a fraud that’s been perpetrated for two thousand years. I truly want to be atheistic evangelical at times and shout it from the rooftop. IT’S ALL BULLSHIT!

But I think the question is far more important than the reality of Superman. The impact of religion on our society is far more real. It impacts our laws as can be seen. Superman doesn’t. People aren’t killing each other over belief in Superman. They are over Jesus. I think though the best way to expose it as the fraud that it is, is to find the truth about its origins.

Plus given the history of the last 2000 years, it’s far more academically interesting question than the source material for Superman. Superman just hasn’t had the impact that Jesus has. Maybe one day that will change and then I’d be interested in the origin of that myth.

IAE, you really have just dodged the points I made. What is more likely? A completely fictional character of a historical kernel of a man?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
26,899
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
But there is some truth in the Trump stories. There is a Trump. At least he does exist. The stories about him are bullshit. That’s kind of how I see the historical Jesus too. I believe he did exist. The basics of the story are quite plausible. A Jewish peasant from a region know to be an anti Roman hotbed travels to Jerusalem and tries to ignite a revolt against Roman rule to re-establish the Dravidian line of kings only to find out too late that god was not on his side after all and the Romans kill him in a brutal fashion like they did all others.

We have to start with what we can establish as factual. And that is that within a generation of his supposed crucifixion, there are about a dozen biographies of him. There are letters being written about him circulating the Mediterranean world. What’s more plausible? That they all manufactured out of whole cloth what happened? Or, like the Trump stories, start with a historical figure and exaggerate what happened?

Granted we will likely never have hard evidence one way or the other, but I don’t see a complete mythical figure causing all this fuss within a generation of his death. A historical kernel of truth is more plausible.

Who gives a shit?

What possible difference would it make to anything whether Jesus is purely fictional, or based on a real person or persons?

It's unlikely that any fictional character is pure fiction. Superman is based on real people, which is why he looks like a Homo Sapiens, despite being from another planet. But what important changes does that knowledge make to our understanding of the life of Clark Kent? Or to our understanding of ourselves?

The whole question is back door Christianity - You cannot prove that Jesus isn't real, therefore not only am I justified in my faith, but I am justified in claiming that you're a believer too, and therefore it's perfectly reasonable for me to prohibit you from having an abortion. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. etc. etc.

Jesus is fictional. It's probably more important whether Superman is based on a real person than it is whether Jesus was. That is to say, neither question is even worth the effort of asking, unless in support of a hidden agenda.

My not so hidden agenda is to expose Christianity for what it is: a fraud that’s been perpetrated for two thousand years. I truly want to be atheistic evangelical at times and shout it from the rooftop. IT’S ALL BULLSHIT!

But I think the question is far more important than the reality of Superman. The impact of religion on our society is far more real. It impacts our laws as can be seen. Superman doesn’t. People aren’t killing each other over belief in Superman. They are over Jesus. I think though the best way to expose it as the fraud that it is, is to find the truth about its origins.

Plus given the history of the last 2000 years, it’s far more academically interesting question than the source material for Superman. Superman just hasn’t had the impact that Jesus has. Maybe one day that will change and then I’d be interested in the origin of that myth.

IAE, you really have just dodged the points I made. What is more likely? A completely fictional character of a historical kernel of a man?

All fictional characters are based on reality to some extent.

No reliable evidence exists either way for Jesus, so we will never know.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,177
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
How was the historical Jesus important? (as a person in history)

What was special about him?

Why was he made into a god?

Why didn't they make John the Baptist into a god? or James the Just? Both of these were arguably more popular than Jesus, having more followers, in 30 AD.

Also the famous Rabbi Hillel was more recognized than Jesus, at that time.

Why is it that only Jesus Christ was made into a miracle-working god, when there were many other popular rabbis and prophets who could have been chosen for this role?

Why only this Galilean Jesus who appeared around 30 AD and traveled to Jerusalem where he was killed? Maybe his name was not "Jesus Christ" in 30 AD. But this individual person was there, near the town of Capernaum, described in the Gospel accounts -- what caused so many people to make him into a god?

but not anyone else? Why did he stand out as the only one who could be "god" or "the Son of God" or "the Messiah" or "the Savior" who does miracles and can save the world or give eternal life?

There were other outstanding characters in the ancient world who are known to us, made famous in the writings which tell us of their great deeds.

Alexander the Great, Socrates, Hannibal, Gilgamesh, Moses, Mohammed -- we know what their great deeds were, which we can separate from the fictions/legends.

Most of them were great military leaders who won victories in battle;

which is why they became famous and were made into "gods" or great heroes or divine Prophets/teachers.

We can identify what they did that was special, or what was noteworthy about them.

Socrates had a long career teaching and introducing a new skepticism or questioning the traditional beliefs -- but he's not credited with being "god" or doing miracles or being divine.

Gautama Buddha had a long career teaching some new ideas and impressing thousands of disciples with his charisma. But the only miracles attributed to him evolved over many centuries of storytelling and legend-building -- nothing sooner than 300 years after his time.

How did Jesus get made into a god or divine Prophet or miracle-worker in less than 100 years? in only a generation or 2?

as a result of such a short public career? 1-3 years? when for Buddha and Mohammed and others it required a long distinguished career of public teaching for them to gain their status?

and military conquest (in the case of Mohammed)?

Why is no one able to identify what the historical Jesus did to make him noteworthy so that he got turned into a miracle-working god (or "Son of God" or "Messiah" etc.)?

We know why Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus and other rulers became recognized as gods. We know what they did to acquire this status, imposing their power onto millions of subjects.

Why can't anyone identify what Jesus did to acquire his status as a divine miracle-worker?

Why is it that only in this one case we get the angry retort --

"Aaaaaaaaaaa people make up shit!"

or "The stories about him are bullshit."

Why is it only in this one case that we get this kind of impulsive outburst? Why don't we get this response when we ask about the others? about Gautama Buddha and Alexander the Great and Caesar and Mohammed, etc.? In all those cases we can get a calm response about their great deeds or charismatic influence they had over many audiences in a long career and how they became deified or mythologized into divine heroes.

What makes the historical Jesus so uniquely different?

It's OK to say "we don't know" what makes Jesus so unique. Why not be honest and just say we don't have the answer? and so it's just a mystery, like some others? But still it could not be anything supernatural or miraculous, etc.

Why is it that instead of this honest answer, we get only the angry outbursts that he's not special and there are many easy explanations? explanations which no one can offer? only the lies that there were many other reported miracle legends of resurrected heroes similar to this one, and so he's only one more of these?
 
Last edited:

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,808
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
But there is some truth in the Trump stories. There is a Trump. At least he does exist. The stories about him are bullshit. That’s kind of how I see the historical Jesus too. I believe he did exist. The basics of the story are quite plausible. A Jewish peasant from a region know to be an anti Roman hotbed travels to Jerusalem and tries to ignite a revolt against Roman rule to re-establish the Dravidian line of kings only to find out too late that god was not on his side after all and the Romans kill him in a brutal fashion like they did all others.

We have to start with what we can establish as factual.
And that is that within a generation of his supposed crucifixion, there are about a dozen biographies of him. There are letters being written about him circulating the Mediterranean world. What’s more plausible? That they all manufactured out of whole cloth what happened? Or, like the Trump stories, start with a historical figure and exaggerate what happened?

Granted we will likely never have hard evidence one way or the other, but I don’t see a complete mythical figure causing all this fuss within a generation of his death. A historical kernel of truth is more plausible.
Do you think those three bolded statements are in agreement? I suppose it depends on what you consider to be "A historical kernel of truth." Stories about ghosts and dragons contain historical kernels of truth. Does Jesus get a break because he's a man in the stories and not a dragon?

We have accounts of insurrectionists but nothing like the tales of Jesus.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,694
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
But there is some truth in the Trump stories. There is a Trump. At least he does exist. The stories about him are bullshit. That’s kind of how I see the historical Jesus too. I believe he did exist. The basics of the story are quite plausible. A Jewish peasant from a region know to be an anti Roman hotbed travels to Jerusalem and tries to ignite a revolt against Roman rule to re-establish the Dravidian line of kings only to find out too late that god was not on his side after all and the Romans kill him in a brutal fashion like they did all others.

We have to start with what we can establish as factual.
And that is that within a generation of his supposed crucifixion, there are about a dozen biographies of him. There are letters being written about him circulating the Mediterranean world. What’s more plausible? That they all manufactured out of whole cloth what happened? Or, like the Trump stories, start with a historical figure and exaggerate what happened?

Granted we will likely never have hard evidence one way or the other, but I don’t see a complete mythical figure causing all this fuss within a generation of his death. A historical kernel of truth is more plausible.
Do you think those three bolded statements are in agreement? I suppose it depends on what you consider to be "A historical kernel of truth." Stories about ghosts and dragons contain historical kernels of truth. Does Jesus get a break because he's a man in the stories and not a dragon?

We have accounts of insurrectionists but nothing like the tales of Jesus.
By historical kernel of truth I simply mean to say what is first in bold, and that later followers embellished the story with various miracles and added in the resurrection and still later turned him into a demigod, and then a full fledged god.

I think it’s more though than just plausible. We have a lot of circumstantial evidence that there was a band of followers in the decade or two after the crucifixion in Jerusalem. The Epistle of James, the debate between Paul and this band of followers, and even some Non biblical sources about the early movement.

The pure mythicist position rests on the argument from silence. But the historical record isn’t purely silent. While we don’t have contemporary records of Jesus, we have numerous writings about him and his movement in the decades following his death. Many are not canonical. And they can’t be ignored. What is undeniable is that there is a Jesus movement existing in Judea. Were these following a completely fictional character like James Bond? I don’t find that plausible. Many of those individuals would have known the historical Jesus. Jesus isn’t like James Bond or Superman, and yes to an extent they are modeled on human beings, even inspired by historical individuals (at least James Bond was inspired by Flemings experiences as a WWII intelligence officer). Clearly though none of the deeds of James Bond that form the basis of the novels have any historical grounding. There is no real Spectre organization. There was a real Roman Empire that controlled Judea in the 1st Century. They crucified lots of people who challenged their rule.

I just find a completely fictional version of Christ, on the order of a James Bond, as not plausible given the surfeit of writings about him and his movement in the decades following. while I realize it’s not proof of him, a completely mythical character seems to lack any explanatory power. How else did this movement arise as it did?
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,808
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
What about all those other completely mythical religious figures that had their devotees? How did they arise? Is it a Jesus movement or a Jesus religion?

And I don't know what you mean when you say a purely mythicist position. Are you equating mythicism with fiction? I would not equate historicized fiction with mythicism. Fiction has authors that wrote fictional accounts, and those authors certainly had their inspirations that are certainly real, certainly historical, certainly contemporaneous. If there's an historical jesus it's a story-telling author, it's not the gospel protagonist, same as all religions with gods and demigods. I just think that's the simpler and simplest explanation. If it works for Superman I don't see why it doesn't work for Jesus. If it works for Superman but doesn't work for jesus it can be ascribed to jesus being religious and Superman not being religious.

Historical Jesus speculation amounts to a Silver Bullet Theory. I understand the religious angle but popularity doesn't make something historical.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,694
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
What about all those other completely mythical religious figures that had their devotees? How did they arise? Is it a Jesus movement or a Jesus religion?

And I don't know what you mean when you say a purely mythicist position. Are you equating mythicism with fiction? I would not equate historicized fiction with mythicism. Fiction has authors that wrote fictional accounts, and those authors certainly had their inspirations that are certainly real, certainly historical, certainly contemporaneous. If there's an historical jesus it's a story-telling author, it's not the gospel protagonist, same as all religions with gods and demigods. I just think that's the simpler and simplest explanation. If it works for Superman I don't see why it doesn't work for Jesus. If it works for Superman but doesn't work for jesus it can be ascribed to jesus being religious and Superman not being religious.

Historical Jesus speculation amounts to a Silver Bullet Theory. I understand the religious angle but popularity doesn't make something historical.
I don’t have enough material to ascertain all of the other gods of Egypt and Greece to ascertain their historical basis. They arose too deep in time for us to understand and there are no nearly contemporaneous writings about all,of them for us to analyze. It’s certainly plausible that they had historical origins too. But without the data it’s impossible to say. But this contrasts sharply with Jesus for whom we’ve got dozens of writings about within a few decades of his death. Thats the big difference. As to my understanding of what the mythicist position is, it is simply that there are was no historical kernel of truth to the story. it was made up out of whole cloth. The events in bold did not happen. I never took the mythicist position to accept that there was such an historical person but only discount the miracles and resurrection. so I would equate it to fiction writing. Someone had to start the story. Jesus is not like other mythical characters like Hercules because he is set in the contemporary. Just as James Bond is too. If he’d been a purely mythical man, I would think his creator would have found it far more convenient to put him in the distant past, like Daniel.

I think the problem with your view of him as just another story is that we don’t have just an account of him. We have numerous ones. We’ve got the early sayings gospels, such as Thomas, and then we have these letters circulating about him and his earliest of followers. These are before the canonical gospels. If the Gospels had come first, I could more clearly see that as a mythical creation. The entire story didn’t just spring up at once like James Bond did in a matter of weeks From the mind of Ian Fleming.

The sayings Gospels are also clues to a real figure. They don’t have any of the stories or miracles or even his death and resurrection. they’re just the sayings of Jesus. Most scholars say they preceded the canonical gospels.

But for me the real clue lies in the existence of an early entirely Jewish movement that is evidenced in several places, most interestingly in the epistle of James. This movement demands that it remain Jewish. You need to comply with the law to be a follower. This early Jesus movement is very key. It conflicts and contrasts with Paul’s movement to convert gentiles. I can see Paul’s Jesus to be entirely mythical. But he doesn't really talk about Jesus the character very much. I know some have speculated that for Paul, Jesus was not an earth bound individual, but fought his battles and was tortured and killed by demons who live above us. It makes sense. He co-opted an early Jewish movement and turned it into an entirely new religion.

What I think happened was that the real Jesus was an entirely secular movement to overturn Roman rule and James really was his brother and inherited the movement after his death. Jesus may have thought that god was going to perform a miracle and destroy the Romans. Maybe his followers thought he simply got the date wrong. We’ve seen similar such things in cults of our day. Ooops. i must have miscalculated that day! It’s gonna happen two years from now! They hung around Jerusalem but were still persecuted. Paul, being a Roman Jew, was an original persecutor as depicted, but later has an epiphany to use this character as a source to create a new religion where he borrows from other older mystery cults. At some point later, after the destruction of Jerusalem, where the original followers are wiped out, the movement begins to coalesce out of these various ideas and to put their thoughts down in writing.

Thus to some extent the mythicist view is correct in that the religion is based on a purely mythical version of an historical character. But I still argue that there was more likely than not a real historical character That started the movement.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,472
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Egyptian gods were about supporting political power of he pharaohs. Genghis Khan declared himself a god. Routine power plays.

Today god is still about supporting political power across all three Abrahamic faiths. Israeli conservative like Netanyahus, Saudi monarchy, Iran ayotolas, and American conservatives.

Buddhists have the same problem Chrustians do, there are no contemporaneous accounts of who Buddha was. There are several anecdotal accounts which evolved into a narrative.. That he existed is fairly certain, but who he really was is not known.
 

Ephesians

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 10, 2022
Messages
65
So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?
I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,
The Bible itself is a collection of historical documents and is recognized as such by most historians, which is why they use it as evidence for the existence of Jesus. Then you have Tacitus and Josephus referring to the crucifixion of Jesus. Finally, most contemporary historians believe Jesus (as depicted in the Bible) really did exist.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,812
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?
I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,
The Bible itself is a collection of historical documents and is recognized as such by most historians, which is why they use it as evidence for the existence of Jesus. Then you have Tacitus and Josephus referring to the crucifixion of Jesus. Finally, most contemporary historians believe Jesus (as depicted in the Bible) really did exist.
Why do you think that the bible is a collection of historical documents? What is historical about the flood (no one can find it, The Chinese didn't even notice); Jonah's whale, talking donkey's, and other crazy stories. Secondly, all the "books" of the bible contradict each other. If they were intended to be historical, I'd think that they'd be more careful. Finally, where is the reference of the crucifixion in Tactitus and Josephus? I don't see why Jesus couldn't have existed. But I'm not impressed with most of the stories in bible being grounded in history. It has no more historical credibility than does the Iliad.
 
Top Bottom