Historical Jesus?

[ContraBardus]

I hear a lot of people claim that Jesus was a real person, and that he's a historical fact. Even Atheists and non Christians often make this assertion.

 

It bothers me for several reasons.

 

Now, I'm not about to say that Jesus did not exist, and that he was never a real man.

 

I don't think he was amd the evidence doesn't support it. However, it's entirely possible he did exist as a real person. There's not really any such thing as 'proof of nonexistence' to begin with. That really can't be proved, just made more or less likely when compared to existing evidence.

 

My problem is with the word 'fact' getting involved. As if it's undeniably proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he was a real person who actually lived. It's the arrogant certainty that this is somehow proven and must be assumed true by the weight of overwhelming evidence that shows that he existed.

 

That's just not true. Now, you can believe he was a real man, and I wouldn't say a thing about that. There are varying levels of probability accepted for believing he is real and no consensus on the matter.

 

There is no proof of it though.

 

There are no contemporary records that show he existed.

 

There are no first hand accounts. Including the Bible. The earliest partial scrap of any Gospel is a section of John from 130 AD a hundred years after his death.

 

The Gospels are originally of anonymous origins. They are written in 3rd person, and their authorship credit is a result of oral tradition and speculation. They are also in the wrong language, further indication they are not likely authored by the Apostles themselves.

 

There are no artifacts or other archeological evidence to support the existence of Jesus.

 

Jesus left no writings of his own.

 

The only thing we have are writings authored several decades after the fact that imply he might have been real. They only prove the existence of Christians not Jesus himself.

 

There were a lot of people writing in that area at the time. It's one of the best recorded eras of the region and period. There were a lot of people who would have made mention of someone like Jesus.

 

It's very suspicious that no one ever thought to make any mention of this important man. A person who was drawing crowds of thousands, a man who was performing miracles, healing the sick, raising the dead. Saying wise things to large masses, was welcomed and praised as he entered a new city or town.

 

Even skeptical Scholars who didn't necessarily believe the stories were true would have made some mention of such a man.

 

Yet there's nothing until decades, almost a hundred years, after his death.

 

That rules out eye witness accounts. The average life expectancy was 30 at the time, with living to 65 being an extreme rarity, much less a hundred.

 

There are lots of problems with the 'evidence' for Jesus. Some of it is known forgeries such as Josephus, and others proof is not intended to 'confirm' Jesus to begin with. For example, Tacitus is vilifying Christians. He calls them evil, and mentions Jesus as a derisive and derogatory term. He's not confirming his existence.

 

They both suffer from the age problem. Neither one was even born before Jesus died, so neither one can provide confirmation for his existence. Both are relying on hearsay.

 

In fact, all written evidence for Jesus is hearsay. Every single scrap of it. None of it is old enough to be first hand.

 

There's also no corroborative evidence that supports any writings that claim his existence.

 

For example, Nazareth is pretty much proven to have been founded in the 4th century. There's no evidence that it even existed in the time period Jesus supposedly existed. The evidence seems to indicate that it wasn't there for Jesus to be from at the time his story supposedly happened.

 

There's also no evidence of any census being conducted in the time frame given in the Bible. The earliest mention of any other census of the region in recorded history isn't until around the 6th century.

 

Following a star leads you in a circle.

 

At the end of the day, the only evidence for Jesus seems to be that 'The Bible is true, because it says that it is'. Which is circular reasoning.

 

All other evidence isn't old enough to be reliable. Yes, there's mountains of it, Jesus probably has more writings about him than any other person from the period and time, but they're still all based on what are originally hearsay accounts to begin with.

 

A big pile of shit is still a pile of shit.

 

Another common tactic is to bring in 'Historians' and 'Scholars'.

 

Historians and Scholars need evidence too. No one's opinion trumps evidence. Most historians do not 'deny' Historical Jesus. 'Not denying' is not the same thing as 'confirming'. It's true, a lot of Historians and Scholars do 'believe' Jesus was a real person. They can not, however, -prove- it.

 

It doesn't matter how well respected, known, or educated a Historian or Scholar is. Without evidence to support their claim, it doesn't mean anything. It does not lend any great credibility to the argument. Testimony is not evidence, it doesn't matter who's testimony it is. Without evidence, it's just a personal opinion. Testimony is not evidence, 'Appeal to Authority' is a logical fallacy for a reason. No one's opinion is evidence of it's own, not even an expert.

 

The idea of Jesus is so indoctrinated and heavily assumed, that few bother to -really- check the validity of it or be as critical as they should.

 

It's assumed to be true, and anything that promotes it is given more weight than it should have.

 

What little evidence there is to support the existence Jesus would not validate any other figure or idea.

 

It's culturally important. There's a lot of pressure for it to have some truth behind it even if it does not.

 

There's no direct evidence that supports it is true or definitively confirms it.

 

Saying you believe that Historical Jesus was a real person is one thing. Saying he's proven is something else entirely.

 

I've been asking for proof of these claims of Christians for a long time.

 

No one has attempted to provide any actual proof, rather instead have offered only poor attempts to rationalize arguments based on clearly flawed evidence and assumed premises that disregard the standards of proof and evidence.

 

Such as the 'Why did the Apostles die?' or 'Well, if Jesus didn't start the Church who did?' arguments for example. Most of these arguments are irrelevant and unrelated, most are subject to several very likely possibilities that don't involve Jesus being real. They are just attempts to distract from the real subject, or rationalize an absurdity and imply that 'Jesus had to be real' is the only possible explanation. They also fail to do so on an epic scale.

 

Martyrdom is not evidence. Every religion has martyrs. People who died for their beliefs. Saying 'Why did the Apostles die if they didn't believe' implies that there is no other possible explanation for it. There are plenty. Honor, loyalty, delusion, acceptance of fate, and numerous other reasons.

 

There's no evidence that 'denying' would have spared them. The charge was never 'being Christian'. It was always other charges and crimes 'related' to being Christian such as rape, molestation, murder, and recanting would not have spared them. Yes, the motivation for the charges was 'being Christian' but the charges themselves were never so direct.

 

It was much the same as with the Inquisition. If you 'converted' after being tortured, they still killed you. You just got to go to heaven when you died instead of hell. You were still dead, but 'saved'. They didn't usually just let you go and spare your life.

 

It might have been Paul, or Peter who started the Church. Maybe someone we never heard of.

 

There's no evidence that the people in the Gospel had anything to do with writing it or that Jesus himself had anything to do with founding the church aside from 'the Bible says so'. Again, I point out that the Bible cannot be used to verify itself. It's circular reasoning, and it doesn't work, not as evidence, or rational thought.

 

What about all the other religions? Does the fact that you can't prove who started them validate their irrational claims too? Is the fact that there was a cohesive group evidence that a particular person had to start said group? Are their scriptures proof of who it was? There was a cohesive group that believed in Zeus, Odin, Hercules, and Horus as well. Does that mean they were real people who founded their own religions too?

 

I challenge Christians to provide -real- conclusive evidence of this claim. Cite one single first hand account, a single thing he wrote himself, or any record, account, or artifact from -within his lifetime- that confirms his existence.

 

At present no such evidence has ever been found.

 

That means that any assertion, or claim that he existed is an assumption. Just a guess.

 

Believing that it's true is one thing, claiming that it's fact with out being able to prove it is something else.

 

You might think it's very likely he existed, but if you can't prove it, it's not fact, it's not certain, and it's arrogant to pretend that it is.

 

So you think Jesus existed beyond reasonable doubt? Fine. Prove it, or shut up and admit that it's just what you think is true. Just your opinion. Because without proof, that's all that it is. Just like the 'Word of God', it's only your personal opinion and nothing more.

 

Note the total lack of the phrase 'Jesus did not exist'. It's not there, because I'm not sure. No one is either way. There's no evidence that proves he existed. I don't think that he did. It's possible he did, I just don't think it's likely given the evidence.

 

I say again that the problem here is not the 'belief' that Jesus existed, but rather the arrogant certainty, assertion, and insistence that he definitely beyond doubt existed, with no real or direct evidence to support that claim.

 

If you want to claim he existed beyond doubt, fine, but if you're going to make such a bold claim, you need to be able to prove it, or you look like an arrogant idiot.

[Shyone]

I hear a lot of people claim that Jesus was a real person, and that he's a historical fact. Even Atheists and non Christians often make this assertion.

 

If you want to claim he existed beyond doubt, fine, but if you're going to make such a bold claim, you need to be able to prove it, or you look like an arrogant idiot.

I tend to be a real "literalist" when it comes to facts.

 

"Jesus Christ" never existed.

 

Some guy named something like Yeshua ben Yosef may have been crucified and had a following, but "Jesus" is a Greek interpretation of some other guy's name.

 

So everyone is worshipping someone that never existed by that name.

 

I suppose, to the Christians, it doesn't matter really. It's like the claim that the Illiad was not written by Homer, but by someone with the same name. When you have no idea who Homer was (not Simpson), then claiming someone else was really Homer doesn't matter.

[RationalOkie]

My father in law say's that Matthew and John were 'eyewitnesses' of the events recorded. So...Somehow illiterate men wrote in Greek about stories told to them orally by Matthew and John, in Aramaic, about an event that occurred 50 or 60 odd years earlier. Ya, I’m sure that they got it all translated and written down correctly. I'm sure there were NOOOOOO embellishments. Brahahahahahaha......

 

I always remind other Christians to remember the Mormon 'Magic Underwear' and how ridiculous that sounds to them. That's how ridiculous they sound to me. Absurd....irrational....bullshit! I forget who said it but, "People hold onto their religions because they are emotionally comforting not because their intellectually compelling."

 

RO

[dagnarus]

Martyrdom is not evidence. Every religion has martyrs. People who died for their beliefs. Saying 'Why did the Apostles die if they didn't believe' implies that there is no other possible explanation for it. There are plenty. Honor, loyalty, delusion, acceptance of fate, and numerous other reasons.

 

There's no evidence that 'denying' would have spared them. The charge was never 'being Christian'. It was always other charges and crimes 'related' to being Christian such as rape, molestation, murder, and recanting would not have spared them. Yes, the motivation for the charges was 'being Christian' but the charges themselves were never so direct.

 

It was much the same as with the Inquisition. If you 'converted' after being tortured, they still killed you. You just got to go to heaven when you died instead of hell. You were still dead, but 'saved'. They didn't usually just let you go and spare your life.

 

It might have been Paul, or Peter who started the Church. Maybe someone we never heard of.

 

I would also add to this that the only evidence of the apostles being martyred is in fact hearsay. The only evidence we have for their martyrdom is church traditions, which generally have at least two deaths in different places for each apostle. I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out that Paul was killed by robbers while traveling to Judea with the collection money. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if he decided to abscond with the money himself and the church never heard from him again leaving them to invent the tale of his martyrdom.

[dagnarus]

I hear a lot of people claim that Jesus was a real person, and that he's a historical fact. Even Atheists and non Christians often make this assertion.

 

If you want to claim he existed beyond doubt, fine, but if you're going to make such a bold claim, you need to be able to prove it, or you look like an arrogant idiot.

I tend to be a real "literalist" when it comes to facts.

 

"Jesus Christ" never existed.

 

Some guy named something like Yeshua ben Yosef may have been crucified and had a following, but "Jesus" is a Greek interpretation of some other guy's name.

 

So everyone is worshipping someone that never existed by that name.

 

I suppose, to the Christians, it doesn't matter really. It's like the claim that the Illiad was not written by Homer, but by someone with the same name. When you have no idea who Homer was (not Simpson), then claiming someone else was really Homer doesn't matter.

 

For me it comes more down to the fact that the Jesus spoken of in church is the Jesus written about in the gospels, who turned water into wine, fed the five thousand, was tempted by the devil, was without sin, gave these flowery parables, rode into Jerusalem on a donkey while people cryed "hosanna the king", and was crucified by the evil Sanhedrin. For me to consider that Jesus to be not a myth he would have to based upon somebody who did/was all or most of that stuff. If he just happened to be based upon some itinerant rabbi who had a new take on Judaism or whatever then he's just as much a myth as if he was based on no one at all. It wouldn't matter particular what the various people are named.

[oddbird1963]

ContraBardus,

 

Excellent post. After finally finishing reading Werner Kelber's The Oral and the Written Gospel, I'm more convinced than ever that the process of forming and preserving oral tradition and the subsequent drafting of a small portion of those sayings into the gospel of Mark forever obscured the historical Jesus (if he existed) from our ability to know about him.

 

Your distinction between "believing" Jesus existed and being able to prove it is important. And your point that a bandwagon full of scholars who "believe" Jesus existed does not establish this as a fact is something that honest people everywhere need to be clear about.

 

None of this would matter if the Christian religion didn't try to use these so-called facts to take over your life, change your world view and make you live in trembling fear of losing your soul into an eternal hell. There needs to be an incredibly overwhelming level of proof to the claims about a so-called historical Jesus and a miracle filled world.

[qadeshet]

There is more proof for the existence of Santa Claus than for Jesus. I agree with Thomas Paine-Jesus is simply the personification of the Sun in human form. Jesus is just another dying and resurrecting Sun god.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

If you want to claim he existed beyond doubt, fine, but if you're going to make such a bold claim, you need to be able to prove it, or you look like an arrogant idiot.

 

Prove it in what degree? This isn't a science experiment. It is history. The historians that you say don't deny that there probably was a man named Jesus, that was a real person is because history is different than this modern 'proof' mentality.

 

Do you want His body? DNA? Hair sample? What would convince you that He was a real person?

 

If someone had these things, would you believe it really belonged to him? You see, you hear all the claims about how Jesus was a real person without the evidence, and I hear all the claims that say He is not a real person, because there is no evidence.

 

Is this CSI? History is based around more than one aspect. Science is not. In science, either something is, or it is not; based upon experimentation and documentation.

 

There were many groups claiming to be the Messiah in this era. It even says in the Bible that, if He is not really the messiah, then this following will die away as the rest have; this supposedly said by the Romans.

 

So, you have a man that is performing miracles that isn't noticed. Why not? I say because he was the son of a carpenter, and not in any kind of school of Philosophy, as in Alexandria.

[Abiyoyo]

I just read your subtitle to this topic, and I have to say that the opposite is quite arrogant. You do know that they actually found a Jewish burial that had Jesus tomb in it, right? Alot of critics say that it could have been anyone's, yet the History Channel says that odds are, it was the Jesus of the Bible's. Just thought I would add that.

 

See, how can we truly know? I had a thread about the tomb a while back, and the whole notion was totally debunked. Why? Because it is not 'proof' enough for someone that doesn't want to believe he was real.

[Shyone]

 

Do you want His body? DNA? Hair sample? What would convince you that He was a real person?

 

If someone had these things, would you believe it really belonged to him? You see, you hear all the claims about how Jesus was a real person without the evidence, and I hear all the claims that say He is not a real person, because there is no evidence.

 

How many pieces of the True Cross are there? More than enough to make several crosses.

 

Does Jesus DNA have a Y chromosome?

 

I read a fiction book about a scientist that took samples of "blood" from several artifacts that were supposed to be from Jesus and cloned people from the samples.

 

Transubstantiation always interested me. If one were to induce vomiting in someone that had Holy Communion, could you clone Jesus from the vomitus?

 

Most historical claims are judged based on "reality" criteria. Was Julius Caesar stabbed? Probably. I can believe that. Did he become a comet in the sky after he had been deified? I doubt that.

 

Applying the same rational standards to the Christian religion gives me a fairy tale mixed with some probable truth and a bit of "filling in the blanks." But the truth part of it doesn't make Jesus God, and Doesn't make God exist.

[bdp]

You do know that they actually found a Jewish burial that had Jesus tomb in it, right?

 

[hereticzero]

My father in law say's that Matthew and John were 'eyewitnesses' of the events recorded. So...Somehow illiterate men wrote in Greek about stories told to them orally by Matthew and John, in Aramaic, about an event that occurred 50 or 60 odd years earlier. Ya, I’m sure that they got it all translated and written down correctly. I'm sure there were NOOOOOO embellishments. Brahahahahahaha......

 

I always remind other Christians to remember the Mormon 'Magic Underwear' and how ridiculous that sounds to them. That's how ridiculous they sound to me. Absurd....irrational....bullshit! I forget who said it but, "People hold onto their religions because they are emotionally comforting not because their intellectually compelling."

 

RO

They believe the people were real because they were taught to accept the biblical accounts as fact. After all, who would write lies and call them scripture? The NT writers assume the OT is true. The OT stories were not written until the Jews returned from Babylon, hundreds of years before Jesus was to be born. There were no Jews in existence until the return from Babylon. Now we have a group of religious fanatics who believe the land they are standing on is given to them by God, who has also imposed many laws against them. They wrote the religious text to give validity and religious authority from God, so they will be obeyed, to their laws. Through fear and intimidation from the laws now written as having come from Moses, the Jewish religion reigned and the temple flourished--cuz of the believers making sacrifice. The Law of Moses, the ten commandments never existed until after the return from Babylon. OT accounts of an Exodus of the Jews do not exist outside of the OT writings. The stories were written to encourage godly living and fear of the Lord not to disobey his laws. More importantly, the writings gave credence to the priests that ran the temple and who interpreted the Law showing miraculously, divine right as priests. This is why the prophets spoke against the scribes several times in those writings calling them 'liars' because they wrote that god was with them, when he was clearly not. The only proof the Jews had that they owned the territory were the scriptures, written after the fact. If the OT scriptures were fabricated and doctored thousands of years in the past (speaking from the present) then even if the NT taught religious values based on the OT fabrications, this does not give validity to a Jesus at any time in our existence. This also shows the emptiness of revealed religions based on OT writings. Everything that is taught as truth based upon those scriptures is a lie, a complete fabrication. It is religious fiction and it is historical fiction. Anyway you look at it, it's fiction!

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Applying the same rational standards to the Christian religion gives me a fairy tale mixed with some probable truth and a bit of "filling in the blanks." But the truth part of it doesn't make Jesus God, and Doesn't make God exist.

 

Never said any thing to that nature. The OP is about whether Jesus was a real person or not.

[Shyone]

 

 

Applying the same rational standards to the Christian religion gives me a fairy tale mixed with some probable truth and a bit of "filling in the blanks." But the truth part of it doesn't make Jesus God, and Doesn't make God exist.

 

Never said any thing to that nature. The OP is about whether Jesus was a real person or not.

Re-read what I wrote.

 

1. Fairy tales are not real

2. Fictionalized "filling in the blanks" is not real.

3. Truth is real.

 

So if you went back in time and asked to speak with Jesus, No one would know what you were talking about, even "jesus". If you asked someone about the miracle of the fishes and loaves, they would not know what you were talking about, or maybe have a vague recollection about how everyone brought lunch and shared with those who didn't.

 

The story of Jesus being "god" is fantasy, and the truth part of the story does not change that. Nor does this whole twisted fiction/fantasy/story make God real. No God, no son of God, no Jesus Christ.

 

The only question is what is the truth part to the story, but there is so little of it that it shrinks to insignificance. At best, we can eliminate the walking on water, talking with Satan and resurrection parts of the story.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Re-read what I wrote.

 

 

 

I have, as well as read this post; and am saying that none of what you are talking about has anything to do with the OP, whether Jesus was a real person or not. The OP insists that one must have 'proof' that Jesus lived, in an aspect contrary to most historical standards.

 

You keep speaking about the fairy tales, miracles, etc. Jews believe Jesus was a real person, just not the Son of God. Islam believes Jesus was a real person, and a great prophet; also the prophet to return to battle in Armageddon, yet they don't believe He was actually God in flesh.

 

What you are referring to is a whole other topic.

[RationalOkie]

The OP is about whether Jesus was a real person or not.

 

I hear what you're saying Abiyoyo, but what the OP is saying is that it's o.k. for you to say that YOU believe that Jesus was a real person but it's not O.K. for you to say that it IS A FACT. No one has ever proven that he actually existed. It's not a fact...it's faith. As he say's in his rant a thousand PhD’s can say that THEY believe that he existed it doesn't make it any more true. It's still not a fact.

 

Personally, I think there was likely a prophet type person that may or may not have actually been named Jesus. I think the link between this prophet and John 'the Baptist' seems like they were real people who thought that the 'end was near'. The subsequent mythologizing of these people 70 years later doesn't exclude the fact that they could have actually existed. Point is....can't prove it either way.

[oddbird1963]

 

Prove it in what degree? This isn't a science experiment. It is history. The historians that you say don't deny that there probably was a man named Jesus, that was a real person is because history is different than this modern 'proof' mentality.

 

Do you want His body? DNA? Hair sample? What would convince you that He was a real person?

 

 

Abiyoyo,

 

My reading of the OP is that it is just as arrogant to assert that one knows Jesus did not exist as it is to claim to know he did exist. I tend to agree with him, as the transmission of oral tradition and the the force-fitting of oral tradition into textual form did extreme damage to our ability to know the historical context of the early church. The best once could say is , "He might have existed."

 

It is precisely because history has such a less rigorous standard of proof that even a bandwagon of historians ans scholars voting upon the probability cannot "make" Jesus' existence a fact of history.

 

Because of miracle claims and claims of ultimate authority over our lives, history will have to provide pretty much the level of proof you describe or better.

 

 

Is this CSI? History is based around more than one aspect. Science is not. In science, either something is, or it is not; based upon experimentation and documentation.

 

There were many groups claiming to be the Messiah in this era. It even says in the Bible that, if He is not really the messiah, then this following will die away as the rest have; this supposedly said by the Romans.

 

So, you have a man that is performing miracles that isn't noticed. Why not? I say because he was the son of a carpenter, and not in any kind of school of Philosophy, as in Alexandria.

 

You bring out an interesting point that actually stresses how unavailable to us is the historical Jesus. If we had a body or had hair samples or any other kind of tangible evidence that would normally be used to identify a a person in modern times, the artifacts and samples would still be useless to us. Such evidence usually requires known samples or samples from established relatives to confirm an identity.

 

Your point about the "son of a carpenter" performing miracles unnoticed is also another good point. But having a good reason for Jesus' not getting the attention of history early on does not make the Jesus of history any more accessible or knowable. It just explains why Jesus is unverifiable to us as a historical personality.

 

Your point about the Bible does not really prove what it seems you are trying to make it illustrate. It is conceivable that a religion could make it even though it's key religious figure was not truly what everyone claims him, her or it to be. Just pick any world religion that lasted for 500 years or more as proof. There are plenty of them throughout history.

 

If we were talking about "just history," say something on the level of the battle at Thermopylae, Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon or the construction of Caesarea then we would be fine. But our very souls are being sought for imprisonment inside the system of Christianity. We at least deserve to know that Jesus existed with a level of proof that exceeds "he probably existed" without any real proof.

 

IMHO,

OB '63

[dagnarus]

So, you have a man that is performing miracles that isn't noticed. Why not? I say because he was the son of a carpenter, and not in any kind of school of Philosophy, as in Alexandria.

 

Luke 4:14 Then Jesus, filled with the power of the Spirit, returned to Galilee, and a report about him spread through all the surrounding country.

 

Luke 4:37 And a report about him began to reach every place in the region.

 

Matthew 9:26 News of this spread through all that region.

 

Matthew 9:31 But they went out and spread the news about him all over that region.

 

Mark 1:45 Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.

 

Matthew 14:1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, 2and he said to his attendants, "This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him

 

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

 

Mark 6:14 King Herod heard about this, for Jesus' name had become well known. Some were saying, "John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him."

 

Matthew 21:8 A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,

"Hosanna to the Son of David!"

"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"

"Hosanna in the highest!"

10When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, "Who is this?" 11The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.

 

According to the bible he was noticed far and wide. The king noticed, the chief priest noticed, the roman generals noticed, the people thought he was the prophesied messiah and wanted to make him king. Why didn't anybody right anything down?

 

Also I'd like to point out. If there was a preacher from Galilee who lived around that time who didn't perform all those miracles, who wasn't noticed by all, who wasn't plotted against by the elite, how could that person be considered to be Jesus?

[NotBlinded]

Also I'd like to point out. If there was a preacher from Galilee who lived around that time who didn't perform all those miracles, who wasn't noticed by all, who wasn't plotted against by the elite, how could that person be considered to be Jesus?

It's called guru worship. Then the miracles were seen...if you know what I mean.

[dagnarus]

Also I'd like to point out. If there was a preacher from Galilee who lived around that time who didn't perform all those miracles, who wasn't noticed by all, who wasn't plotted against by the elite, how could that person be considered to be Jesus?

It's called guru worship. Then the miracles were seen...if you know what I mean.

I get you. My point was more along the lines of if this mythological version of Jesus, were based upon an actual real life Jesus who barely resembled the myth, that mythological version of Jesus is still a myth who never existed.

[Shyone]

 

I get you. My point was more along the lines of if this mythological version of Jesus, were based upon an actual real life Jesus who barely resembled the myth, that mythological version of Jesus is still a myth who never existed.

Looking through the available sources, I suspect Jesus is an amalgam of different characters in the final form. Kind of like a fiction novel where the main character is based on several different people.

[Dagan]

Abiyoyo,

 

The History Channel is to history what Fox News is to broadcast news. It's interesting, but hardly authoritative on anything. Go read a book, learn German and read all the stuff researched by scholars in the past century (German scholars were on the cutting edge of biblical criticism and research and much of what we accept now is based on their work).

 

And let me sum up the OP's (excellently-presented) point for you.

 

Real history is based on primary (first-hand) sources.

 

There are no primary sources contemporary to Jesus that say anything about him.

 

The gospels don't count as primary sources -- their origins are a source of debate.

 

All we have left are a handful of quotes from writers long after Jesus was crucified, some which may or may not be forgeries.

 

See the problem?

 

Why should I stake my eternal soul on a man propped up by so few facts?

 

Oh right, I just have to have faith. There's always a catch, isn't there?

[ContraBardus]

My OP's argument isn't about promoting or denying the idea that Jesus really did or didn't exist either way.

 

I don't think that he did, and find the evidence unconvincing. However, I wouldn't say anything to anyone who claims they 'believe' he did. Nor would I ever state 'Jesus did not exist' and present it as a fact. I am very careful about that, and always make clear that it is my opinion that I do not -believe- that he existed.

 

It's the arrogant assertion that he 'definitely existed beyond doubt' and that anyone who does not agree is an idiot for not thinking so despite the 'truckloads of historians and Scholars who also think so' that the OP is contesting.

 

The evidence is not strong enough to validate such certainty and claim that it is 'undeniable fact'. That's the only real 'undeniable fact' about the debate on the subject.

 

It's about the certainty of it, despite the lack of evidence. My point is that both the assertion that 'Jesus definitely existed' and 'Jesus was definitely a myth' are equally invalid. It's the arrogant insistence that it's 'undeniably proven true' either way. Neither has ever been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Even though it's never been conclusively proven, it's something I've heard from many people, even secularist and Atheist. They seem to think it has been, and cite academic and scholarly opinions to back it up.

 

Well, there's a -reason- 'Appeal to Authority' is a Logical Fallacy. Scholarly opinions of Historians or any other Academic experts -are not evidence-. In fact, they -require- evidence, and in the case of Historians, that evidence is often sub par and would not be accepted by -any other- academic discipline.

 

History is Science. It's a Social Science. The problem is that many who claim to be Historians do not see it as such and claim it is Philosophy or Art to excuse themselves from the standards of proof and evidence a Scientific Discipline requires. They are doing History a disservice and should have their credentials revoked for it.

 

The problem is, it's not 'undeniable' nor is it 'proven'. It's speculative, and assumed. It's not been disproved, and most historians do not 'deny' the existence of Jesus. However, 'not denying' is not the same thing as 'confirming'.

 

We don't know, there isn't enough evidence or information to validate certainty that he existed as a real person. There's nothing that really confirms his existence. The only evidence we have is from accounts and sources much to far removed to confirm anything that imply it or are of suspect or contested origins.

 

You can believe he existed, but you can't prove that he did.

 

My problem is the claim that it's 'fact' when there's not enough evidence to support the claim that it is a fact.

 

The evidence is inconclusive and while a great deal of it certainly does imply that he might have existed, none of it -proves- it. There is plenty of room for reasonable doubt that he was ever a real person.

 

What you or anyone else believes has nothing to do with it. It's about making claims of fact that can't be backed up just because of a strong belief and pretending that the weight of the evidence is far greater than it really is to promote that belief on a false premise. It's dishonest, subversive, and does more harm than good.

 

I have the exact same problem with those that promote 'Jesus was a myth' as undeniable fact as I do with those who claim 'Jesus definitely existed' as one. There's not enough evidence to support either case, perhaps enough for you to believe, but not enough to prove conclusively that either one is true beyond doubt.

[Neon Genesis]

The argument Bart D Ehrman uses in his book Jesus Interrupted in favor of the existence of the Jesus is that the writings of Josephus are only partially forged. The parts about Jesus being God and raising from the dead was added in by later Christians but the non-supernatural part where Josephus references Jesus is generally accepted as being authentic evidence of the historical Jesus. Whether you accept it as evidence is for you to decide, but this is the secular argument that's used.

[Ouroboros]

For me, the only reasonable argument for a historical Jesus (non-miraculous, not-God-son, just human teacher/cult-leader) is that pretty much every religious cult in the world starts with one lead-figure. I'm not sure Paul is the one, since he is referring back to an existing cult. That cult, which Paul built upon (and most likely modified), must have had someone in the lead. I don't know about any religious movement of any kind which didn't have a charismatic leader to kick it off. After that, we can all argue how much of the stories are true about this leader, even argue if his name was Jesus or not, but I have a hard time accepting a collective "mind" creating a cult on its own.