Historical Jesus

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

Absolutely.

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

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

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

They don't sound religious to me. In fact they speak rather disparagingly of religious behavior. Sagan mentions pious fraud for example.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hey, guys. Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth now Lion, but he's just saying that he's amazed and in awe over creation as well as science. He clearly doesn't see a conflict between science and religion.

That's a perfectly fine position to hold. And not one that is obviously wrong.

 

[DBT]

Scientists who hold private religious beliefs on the basis of faith have nothing to do with science in general or the work of these scientists in science.

 

[angelo]

So, all this banter proves that Jesus was/is nothing but myth made history?

 

[Atheos]

Getting back to the topic at hand there really isn't enough evidence to say either way. The Jesus tales could have been inspired by an actual person (just as the Paul Bunyan stories could have been inspired by an actual larger-than-usual lumberjack.) But nobody had to actually defy the laws of physics or subvert everything we know about neurological disease in order to inspire the stories that sprang up. People make up stories all the time. Nobody walks on storm-tossed sea water as if it were dry land, ever.

 

[iolo]

The trouble on here, I find, is that people don't discuss history but their dislike of the 'God' notion, which they then mix up with a lot of very cranky conspiracy theories, shifting from the one to the other with gay abandon. This doesn't seem a totally useful activity. An obsession with 'religion' from either side seems to put the stoppers on sense, as does a determination to discuss 'the Bible' as if we were discussing its theological truth rather than what little we know about the origins of particular books. I find conspiracy theories increasingly depressing, since they never seem to think out motive or likelihood in any detail, merely attempting constantly to score off some fundamentalist enemy. Must be American conditions, I fear! .

 

[Horatio Parker]

The trouble on here, I find, is that people don't discuss history but their dislike of the 'God' notion, which they then mix up with a lot of very cranky conspiracy theories, shifting from the one to the other with gay abandon. This doesn't seem a totally useful activity. An obsession with 'religion' from either side seems to put the stoppers on sense, as does a determination to discuss 'the Bible' as if we were discussing its theological truth rather than what little we know about the origins of particular books. I find conspiracy theories increasingly depressing, since they never seem to think out motive or likelihood in any detail, merely attempting constantly to score off some fundamentalist enemy. Must be American conditions, I fear! .

You've said this over and over, but I, and I'd guess others here, have no idea what you're talking about. And if it's Doherty you're referring to, he's Canadian.

The issue is very simple. There are no contemporaneous sources for Jesus. References to a historical Jesus don't appear until the latter half of the second century.

And it has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of God.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Myths evolve over time. The euhemerization of the Jesus myth is nothing new. Lots of gods and supermen have made their earthly lives known in the same way.

The Historical Tooth Fairy

The Tooth Fairy as we know it is a relatively recent creation, like other myths, evolved over time. There are traditions, legends and myths dating back millennia with regards to loosing your baby teeth.

Early norse and European traditions suggest that when a child lost a baby tooth, it was buried to spare the child from hardships in the next life. A tradition of the tand-fe or tooth fee originated in Europe for a child’s first tooth, and vikings used children’s teeth and other items from their children to bring them good luck in battle.

There’s also the more general tradition of a good fairy in Europe that was birthed out of fairy tales and popular literature in more recent times. Ultimately the most popular version of a ‘tooth deity’ is the image of a mouse, who would enter children’s rooms and remove baby teeth. This tradition is prominent in Russia, Spain and many asian countries like China.

Even if one discounts the existence of the tooth fairy as real, one still has to deal with the rise of the legend and the myth. The tooth fairy believer will always ask, "If there isn't really a tooth fairy, why would the story ever arise? Clearly there has to be a reason for all the fuss about a tooth fairy."

 

[Learner]

Superman, Disney , Harry Potter , Santa Claus , and the tooth fairy have that main important factor that differentiates instinctively from the Jesus story .

CHILDREN! They grow out of it ... later passing on the stories at bedtime to their children.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Superman, Disney , Harry Potter , Santa Claus , and the tooth fairy have that main important factor that differentiates instinctively from the Jesus story .

CHILDREN! They grow out of it ... later passing on the stories at bedtime to their children.

How is that different from the Jesus story?
I certainly feel that I grew out of Santa Claus, Jesus and the Tooth Fairy... All by the same process of critical analysis of contradictory stories with not much in the way of objective supporting evidence.

 

[Learner]

Superman, Disney , Harry Potter , Santa Claus , and the tooth fairy have that main important factor that differentiates instinctively from the Jesus story .

CHILDREN! They grow out of it ... later passing on the stories at bedtime to their children.

How is that different from the Jesus story?
I certainly feel that I grew out of Santa Claus, Jesus and the Tooth Fairy... All by the same process of critical analysis of contradictory stories with not much in the way of objective supporting evidence.

Do you know of any serious adults, cults or movements that believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus other than those that believe in Jesus? There must have been some critical analysis with those inviduals that stuck with the Jesus story other than the fairy stories.

 

[abaddon]

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

Absolutely.

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

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

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

I've entertained the same idea: religiosity as feelings and behavior. It'd work, if most people didn't associate religion with the supernatural but just thought of it as "numinous awe" and devoted truth-seeking and reverence of nature.

But there's nothing distinctly religious in those feelings because, tragically, too many religious people make it very plain that, inasmuch as their religion is about such exceptional feelings, their wonder and awe is largely reserved for the fantastical because what's materially/demonstrably real seems dismal to them.

Elsewhere than this post you reveal, in plenty, that you see religion as a metaphysics in competition with "atheistic" science. Which ultimately comes from a dismal view of nature. It seems like just dumb junk that sits around waiting for a Mind to 'make it do stuff', and generally pathetic enough that many religious folk turn to the fantastical to try to "complete" it, and thereby anthropomorphize the crap out of it. So, they find their meaningfulness not in discovery but in projecting their imaginations out into nature to make it seem more congenial to their wants. And that's not discovery.

So, yes, if religiosity were exceptional feelings and the behavior that they motivate, then you'd be onto something. But unfortunately the bags of metaphysical beliefs in religions motivate hostility to discovery in order to protect those beliefs.

 

[abaddon]

Personally I'd find the Jesus story more intriguing if it were presented forthrightly as a teaching tale rather than as merely an historical event. Myths aren't "false" if you don't present them as history, and most people love a story more than a listing of alleged 'facts'.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How is that different from the Jesus story?
I certainly feel that I grew out of Santa Claus, Jesus and the Tooth Fairy... All by the same process of critical analysis of contradictory stories with not much in the way of objective supporting evidence.

Do you know of any serious adults, cults or movements that believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus other than those that believe in Jesus? There must have been some critical analysis with those inviduals that stuck with the Jesus story other than the fairy stories.

By the same token, Hercules must have been real. After all, he was worshipped as a deity for thousands of years. There must have been some critical analysis with those individuals that stuck with the Hercules story other than the fairy stories. I mean, white bulls are expensive and people aren't just going to go and sacrifice one to him before marching their army off to war unless they have a high level of confidence about it being a good investment.

I assume that you see a difference between the proper critical analysis used to correctly identify that Jesus was real and the improper critical analysis which was used to incorrectly identify that Hercules was real. What is that difference?

 

[Keith&Co.]

How is that different from the Jesus story?
I certainly feel that I grew out of Santa Claus, Jesus and the Tooth Fairy... All by the same process of critical analysis of contradictory stories with not much in the way of objective supporting evidence.

Do you know of any serious adults, cults or movements that believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus other than those that believe in Jesus? There must have been some critical analysis with those inviduals that stuck with the Jesus story other than the fairy stories.

Why? Why do you say there 'MUST HAVE' been?
I have met and conversed with many people who absolutely will not subject some of their most cherished beliefs to critical analysis, and maintain that they believe true things. Politics, patriotism, which NFL team is the best, which church is the best, which religion is true... By and large, people are not in the habit of close introspective scrutiny.
I would suspect that MOST people who stop believing in Santa stopped when someone they trusted told them there was no such person, though many of us came to this conclusion before anyone revealed the ending to us.

So, no, I don't believe that I would HAVE to believe that the greater number of believers have performed a critical analysis of their beliefs. If they did, I think it would be a lot easier to get a straight answer out of a believer when you ask 'why do you think this is true?'
Instead of so very many arguments from popularity, arguments from incredulity, arguments from how dare you question God, and so on....

 

[Learner]

By the same token, Hercules must have been real. After all, he was worshipped as a deity for thousands of years. There must have been some critical analysis with those individuals that stuck with the Hercules story other than the fairy stories. I mean, white bulls are expensive and people aren't just going to go and sacrifice one to him before marching their army off to war unless they have a high level of confidence about it being a good investment.

Now that you put Hercules in the picture; Is there a difference between Hercules legend and the tooth fairy story? In this regard there is a difference.. as you say people worshipped and believed in this demi-god. A legend or an ancient Greek mythology like many of the ancient world derived this idea as their intepretation of events that happened in their day .. where as the tooth fairy is something else and has never really been seen or recorded with the same perspective.

I assume that you see a difference between the proper critical analysis used to correctly identify that Jesus was real and the improper critical analysis which was used to incorrectly identify that Hercules was real. What is that difference?

The difference between Jesus and Hercules is the acceptance .. the critical analysis .. of many scholars including atheist / agnostic scholars and historians who have no doubts Jesus existed.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Personally I'd find the Jesus story more intriguing if it were presented forthrightly as a teaching tale rather than as merely an historical event. Myths aren't "false" if you don't present them as history, and most people love a story more than a listing of alleged 'facts'.

Absolutely. But the early church wedded itself to historicism in its struggle with the Gnostics.

And, somehow, the notion of apostolic succession made the leap to Protestantism. Not sure how that works, but expecting these things to make sense is sometimes too much.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The difference between Jesus and Hercules is the acceptance .. the critical analysis .. of many scholars including atheist / agnostic scholars and historians who have no doubts Jesus existed.

And there are scholars who believe that Beowulf started as a real person, who may have really fought a bear with his bare hands. So, Grendel would appear to be 'just as historical' as Jesus, if you're going to go that route.

 

[Lion IRC]

There's nothing intellectually dishonest or flawed in accepting that a real person named Jesus did real actions which other real people honestly took (or mistook) to be 'miracles'.

The atheist historian is not compromising anything by admitting as much as this based on the documents we have.

But to assert that there never was a real historical Jesus of Nazareth and that the documents are fakes, lies, myths is to put oneself in the category of inventing a new myth - that Jesus never existed.

#tu_quoque #pot_kettle

 

[none]

Still no evidence of historical Jesus, that is the problem. those that believe in a historical Jesus offer no proof and those that are agnostic on the issue still wait for the evidence
Typical Christian apologetics to change the narrative of lack of credible evidence of Jesus and the facts of the facts they have, they are just not interested in rational discourse because it interferes with their faith

If the best response is "you can't prove Jesus never existed" why bother?

And that is the folly of Christian apologetics it ignores the inquiry into evidence and supplants that inquiry into a molested assertion of proving a negative, a fallacy has occurred

So no, Lion, I'm not interested in your straw man, or fake news