Historical Jesus

[Tom Sawyer]

Why would people neg rep someone? That is so lame. No wonder we don't get the quality of discussions we used to.

 

[none]

Schrodinger's Outlaw

Got your PM.
No thanks.
I try having a discussion and all I get is a stream of consecutive down-rep votes.
That strikes me as vindictive and spiteful. *shrug*
Also it's NOT a logical fallacy to use the same historical evidence as the MAJORITY
of bible scholars. It's not my fault they too think there is evidence for a Historical Jesus.

But yeah...I give up.

Haha the bible is not the historical record
It is religious propaganda
If all you have is complaints bring them but please provide the evidence to support it
I don't need to know that religious folk believe the Jesus myth to be true, I understand that
What I am asking for is evidence showing that there was a historical Jesus that isn't myth
The only feeling hurt is yours because I pointed out that what you provided was not evidence, at least reliable evidence and I told you why
An appeal to authority is not reliable and Josephus was a Roman and the existence of interpolation in his works along with the fact that Romans didn't make street preachers divine is enough to dismiss it
I know you believe in zombies

 

[Atheos]

Yes there are scholars who will argue that the bible is a reliable source of historical information. I do not agree with this assessment and many historians disagree as well.

The bible is demonstrably wrong about a great many things it records as history. From the absurd 6 day creation with its talking snake and magical fruit trees to the flood myth to the bogus exodus narrative to the bogus history of Babylon portrayed in Daniel, historians and science in general have debunked biblical history right and left.

We can't check every detail of the Jesus narratives but the things we can check often turn out to be bogus. Herod never ordered all male children under age 2 throughout any region to be executed. Rome never issued censuses that required people to travel to the cities their ancestors lived in to be counted. It's laughably absurd. Pilate was not the milquetoast person described in the narratives. He would not have been bullied by an angry Jewish mob.

The life of Jesus, had it happened as recorded in the gospel narratives, would have made a mark in the contemporary history of his time. Of that there is no doubt in my mind. These narratives depict a man who at one point had followers numbering over 7,000. According to these stories his exploits were significant enough to attract the attention of King Herod, rulers throughout vast areas and cause a significant amount of angst with the religious leaders of the Jewish people. Yet not once do any contemporary historians notice this enigmatic individual. And there were several in a good position to do exactly that. The silence is not just deafening, it's completely inexplicable. Unless, of course, these stories were simply made up decades later.

Scholarship has demonstrated conclusively that the writers of the bible were willing to play loose with the facts in the interest of their agendas. Trusting these narratives without external corroboration is at best an irresponsible methodology when it comes to historical study. Trusting them for religious reasons -- that's entirely different.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Mark reads so much like a piece of theatre it is certain it was never written to be a factual rendition of events. It's written for an audience and casts it's characters in specific roles. No doubt much of the then current symbolism escapes us. But it's definitely an audience piece.

 

[blastula]

Thesolonians was the first mention of Jesus not the later gospels, they evolved from earlier religious propaganda, namely the works attributed to Paul /Saul a person who is not proven to exist outside of Christian lore

The Pauline letters are good evidence Paul existed. If we had something comparable for Jesus, there wouldn't be as much question in his case.

 

[Juma]

The Pauline letters are good evidence Paul existed.

Eh? Why do you believe that?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Thesolonians was the first mention of Jesus not the later gospels, they evolved from earlier religious propaganda, namely the works attributed to Paul /Saul a person who is not proven to exist outside of Christian lore

The Pauline letters are good evidence Paul existed. If we had something comparable for Jesus, there wouldn't be as much question in his case.

How do you figure? They make not a single reference to Jesus as a man, save for one possibility i.e. a vague "brother of the Lord" passage.

Nothing about Nazareth, his earthly ministry, Pilate etc. Nada.

And SO is correct: the NT is the only source for Paul. Besides his letters, I believe the only mention of him is in Acts.

 

[blastula]

The Pauline letters are good evidence Paul existed.

Eh? Why do you believe that?

Because they (the authentic ones) look like genuine letters written to actual communities in the mid first century, and by the writing style, from the same person, someone who had contact with those communities. It is more likely they were from the person the letters claim rather than that someone invented these letters and was able to make them look so genuine and for what would have to be very strange motivations. There is nothing improbable or extraordinary about a real person existing and writing these letters.

 

[blastula]

The Pauline letters are good evidence Paul existed. If we had something comparable for Jesus, there wouldn't be as much question in his case.

How do you figure? They make not a single reference to Jesus as a man, save for one possibility i.e. a vague "brother of the Lord" passage.

Nothing about Nazareth, his earthly ministry, Pilate etc. Nada.

Read again, I didn't say Paul's letters proved anything about Jesus. But the letters do have more than one reference to Jesus as a man.

And SO is correct: the NT is the only source for Paul. Besides his letters, I believe the only mention of him is in Acts.

He's only right if he means Acts or non-canonical texts about Paul, but he misses the letters. The letters may be in the NT, but the letters aren't "Christian lore."

 

[Horatio Parker]

How do you figure? They make not a single reference to Jesus as a man, save for one possibility i.e. a vague "brother of the Lord" passage.

Nothing about Nazareth, his earthly ministry, Pilate etc. Nada.

Read again, I didn't say Paul's letters proved anything about Jesus. But the letters do have more than one reference to Jesus as a man.

And SO is correct: the NT is the only source for Paul. Besides his letters, I believe the only mention of him is in Acts.

He's only right if he means Acts or non-canonical texts about Paul, but he misses the letters. The letters may be in the NT, but the letters aren't "Christian lore."

Doh! Sorry, drinking and posting(Friday happy hour)…gotta be careful.

Anyway, there are different theories about the Pauline letters, none of which, including that they're genuinely Paul's, can be proven.

 

[Juma]

There is nothing improbable or extraordinary about a real person existing and writing these letters.

And is nothing extraordinary about someone was being creative and created these letters.

 

[blastula]

There is nothing improbable or extraordinary about a real person existing and writing these letters.

And is nothing extraordinary about someone was being creative and created these letters.

That they were fabricated is more unlikely than that there were real letters. The latter fits the evidence better.

 

[Juma]

And is nothing extraordinary about someone was being creative and created these letters.

That they were fabricated is more unlikely than that there were real letters. The latter fits the evidence better.

Really? What evidence?

 

[blastula]

One of the most astonishing things about Jesus Mythers is their self-proclaimed knowledge about the true origin of the Gospel manuscripts - documents about which other atheists/skeptics say we cannot know their origin.

Authors weren't named Mark or Luke or Matthew. Authors never had first hand testimony. Authors weren't independent. Authors never lived in the vicinity. Authors waited 50 years to write their first version of events. Authors were motivated by greed. Authors were Roman spies writing forgeries as a pretext for Rome to invade Jerusalem...

There is a difference between saying specific details are unknown and of saying we know a specific detail is false. "X is unknown" is not the same as "X is false." But there are good reasons to think they weren't eyewitnesses, just by looking at the content. And we know the authors aren't independent because they copied each other or the same source.

So apparently it's OK for bible skeptics to fabricate conspiracy theories and guess and fill in the blanks but when religious folks make counter-claims about the likely identity of Gospel writers they are rejected out of hand.

Unfounded speculations are not OK when propounded as fact by anyone.

Where do bible skeptics get their 'facts' about the Gospel authors? If Jesus Mythers admit we don't know the author's true identity, how can one be certain those authors weren't actual witnesses truthfully reporting events they believed to be true?

The authors very well could have believed their stories true, but that wouldn't make them true or reliable.

...and doing so at the risk of torture and death.

The evidence for martyrdom of specific disciples is very sketchy, let alone of any of the authors. But even if, we would still need a lot of very specific verified details about the person and the execution circumstances to be able to say that it counts as supporting any part of the stories.

 

[none]

blastula, I wouldn't consider generating a story to challenge the status quo strange
It may have been a solo operation maybe not

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

nm

 

[iolo]

How much was Mark paid? We know Socrates from Plato, and Xenophon's picture is hugely different. We have no independent evidence.

Nothing about the author of gMark is known.

Our information about Socrates may conflict, but the point is, he existed.

What exactly is the difference in the evidence? You Americans are far too fond of disappearing historical figures on minimal evidence.

 

[iolo]

Who, in the Roman Empire, could possibly have gained from making him up? Read the two different accounts of Socrates (who undoubtedly existed), then go back to the NT - they are far less consistent than the Gospels, which are manifestly by different people. American conspiracy theories are way out of hand!

If the logic of your argument were sound, then no one would invent religions ever.

So if you truly believe that your argument is valid, then you must conclude that all religions are true. Since the Bible claims to represent the one and only true religion, then if the logic of your argument is good, then the Bible must be false.

But thankfully for you, your argument is just an appeal to consequence fallacy.

Who benefits? Lots of people benefit.

The leaders of the resulting religion gain wealth and political influence. The state gains a new mechanism for controlling the masses. The fact that the Roman empire made Christianity the official state religion proves that powerful Romans considered Christianity to be a useful political control mechanism.

It's the same exact benefits for creating any religion.

Look, any piece of historical evidence has to meet certain criteria in order to be accepted by historians. The evidence we have for Socrates meets this criteria. The Bible would be rejected if it failed even one of those historical criteria, but the Bible actually manages to fail every single one of those criteria, and there are no corroborating contemporaneous sources validating anything in the Bible other than the names of places and peoples. If that is your standard for historical evidence, then all historical fiction is true.

Why do a majority of the relevant scholars think the character of Jesus in the New Testament is at least in part based on a real person? That conclusion is based purely on circumstantial evidence, and it is worth looking at.

For instance, the census of Quirinius did not happen. Not only did it not happen, but there has never been a census that forced families to move back to the birthplace of the head of household. So the Bible is clearly lying about the census of Quirinius. However, it's the obvious reason for the lie that provides circumstantial evidence for Jesus. That lie is in the New Testament in order to shoehorn Jesus into "fulfilling" some prophecy.

If Jesus were entirely fictional, then why not change the story to have him be born in that city in the first place? Why tell an elaborate lie in order to claim Jesus "comes from" a particular town like that? While there are many possible explanations for this, the simplest explanation is that the story started with a real person who was not born in the correct town to fulfill the prophecy, and that later authors of the Bible lied in order to claim that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy.

That particular lie in the New Testament simply makes more sense if you assume the character of Jesus was in part based on a real person.

Obviously, the character of Jesus is also based on a large number of fictional characters, but we don't need to go into that, do we? If at least one of the inspirations for that character was real, then we can't say that Jesus was entirely mythical.

You live in a world of fantasy. About any movement, anywhere, always ask 'Who gains?' You might also ask about your weird world of dark plots by people without motivation. Jesus turned Judaism into something that made sense - socialism, which is why his thinking spread in a foul society.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Nothing about the author of gMark is known.

Our information about Socrates may conflict, but the point is, he existed.

What exactly is the difference in the evidence? You Americans are far too fond of disappearing historical figures on minimal evidence.

Contemporaneous references to Socrates, four. For Jesus, none.

I'm agnostic on HJ. There's no proof one way or another. But the evidence such as it is, or lack of it, favors a mythical Jesus.

 

[iolo]

What exactly is the difference in the evidence? You Americans are far too fond of disappearing historical figures on minimal evidence.

Contemporaneous references to Socrates, four. For Jesus, none.

I'm agnostic on HJ. There's no proof one way or another. But the evidence such as it is, or lack of it, favors a mythical Jesus.

Paul? Whatsisname, the collaborationist historian? Come off it! Socrates lived in a highly literate city, where people mattered. Jesus was a colonial in a smelly slave -Empire. You believe only Roman propagandists?