There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[Vigile]

That's very strange to happen without something/someone unifying at least that single part.

 

This, I don't find strange if there were loads of competing sects. I just think how it happened could have gotten lost.

 

Take the myths of Hercules. At some point, someone must have written the first Hercules story.

 

Ah, see here is a great example of how I see this very differently than you. There wouldn't necessarily have ever had to be a first Hercules story. The story, in my mind, likely evolved out of legends that morphed from tons of different sources, including stories from foreign lands that all melded into the Greek culture. There would not be an original document or story in this case, but lots and lots of stories that eventually just became one basic story as one paradigm won out out of many possibilities.

 

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make throughout this thread.

 

Was their a first multi-celled biological organism?

[Ouroboros]

The Buddha, Orphus, Pythagorus, Homer, and probably Muhammad are all Myths, the Myth of the Great Man.

 

Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins Robert Spencer

 

Spencer's position:

Spencer does say that he believes that a man by the name of Muhammad may have existed in the same way that a Robin Hood may have existed, but all of the stories and legends about him were likely made up by competing factions who are documented by Muslim scholars themselves as fabricating stories for political reasons and/or to support their beliefs and practices.

From here: http://www.faithfreedom.org/features/book-review/a-valuable-read-did-muhammad-exist-by-robert-spencer/

 

It's not the same as "have not existed at all."

 

Someone did exist, but not the famous and mythologized hero/god/god-son etc. The kernel of a persona sparked and piqued the growth. Like a seed that sprouts. A tree is not a seed. But a tree came from a seed. The seed did exist. We don't know what the seed looked like, but the tree didn't come from nothing or by pure osmosis ideas from of surrounding trees.

 

When you build something, you have to have something to build on.

[Ouroboros]

That's very strange to happen without something/someone unifying at least that single part.

 

This, I don't find strange if there were loads of competing sects. I just think how it happened could have gotten lost.

They all attributed their stories and sayings to someone they called Jesus. They had a common idea that was shared. That wasn't in competition. The non-compete idea had an origin or they all had the same non-compete idea independent of each other. Shared origin is natural. Coming up with the same name, independent of each other, spooky. But okay, let's say the name Jesus was very popular to use in Judea for any new myths and cults, and it was because of the beliefs in Judaism. At least we can agree that it had a starting point there. Now, how these Jewish cults got so popular with the Romans is still a mystery to me. Popular to such a degree that they were becoming criminals and rejecting the laws.

[mcdaddy]

I'm a mythicist, and I think acharya an zeitgeist are bullshit to some degree. There is more than one way of looking at it guys.

[mcdaddy]

And stop talking about this supposed "evidence" that will prove the historicity of Jesus that just hasnt been unearthed yet.

 

If it happens, then we'll talk about it. Until then, argue about shit that actually is relevant.

 

Edit: Didnt mean to sound like a dick there. The argument just got under my skin a little. Sorry.

[qadeshet]

But I fail to see how that process began without an actual person at the beginning of it that started the avalanche of myth in his name. That's where I just don't get the 'he never existed' theory. Besides looking at the evidence, you don't just have myths. You have teachings. And those teachings are what 'took off'. It's not just 'here's a cool new god to worship', it has the earmarks of the teachings of some sage at its core.

 

I don't see how Joseph Smith could have possibly made up the Golden Tablets, therefore Moroni exists. There is nothing original about any of the the teachings of Jesus. All can be found in the Torah, Tanakh, and Pagan beliefs. A new Cult found promises in the Suffering Servant of Isaah 53 and Daniel 9.

This comparison is not very good. Joseph Smith and Jesus would be more the comparison, not Jesus and Moroni.

 

And to say there was not original about the teachings of Jesus, well, if they weren't unique then why have a religion start over them? Why not just take what already existed? This is true of any and all teachings that start new religions. Obviously, they have to be different enough. Common sense actually.

 

The better comparison is Jesus for Moroni and Paul for Joseph Smith. Show me one original teaching put in the mouth of Jesus. Show me one instance where Paul quotes any teachings from an historical Jesus.

 

You are saying there is no basis whatsoever for either Elijah or Moses to have been actual human beings, because the myths about them can't be true, therefore they didn't exist? I see the deep fault line in your views here.

 

Is there any evidence for Elijah or Moses outside the Bible? And if Moses didn't part the Red Sea and lead the Exodus, what exactly did he do? My contention is that without evidence external to the Myths themselves, we have every right to doubt historical reality. I demand actual evidence, not suppositions.

 

BTW, the Buddha also has a lot of later teachings and myths ascribe to him too. Was the Buddha a non-historical person?

 

The Buddha, Orphus, Pythagorus, Homer, and probably Muhammad are all Myths, the Myth of the Great Man.

The Buddha was a historical person. His name was Siddhartha Gautama. He actually lived and had actual teachings. Later myths became ascribed to him of his divine greatness, such as lotus flowers blossoming in his footsteps as he first walked as an infant. But that you say he represents the Myth of the Great Man, is dead wrong. The Buddha is not a Hero Myth, like the Greek Gods, extolling the virtues of mans greatness of man conquering the Earth Mother. I see Jesus and Buddha much the same in origins and later myths. They became notable figures of schools of thought, which later heaped myths upon them to infuse them with deep symbolic meaning to their followers.

 

Buddha's existence has been questioned for a long time. There is no more evidence for Buddha's existence than Jesus.

 

If we strip away all the myths and legends of the Buddha, we're left with the minimalist Buddha: an ascetic who meditated under a tree and came up with the four noble truths. Everything else he was supposed to have said were probably put into his mouth by later disciples who were intent in founding a religion. It has been said that the Buddha didn't make the Buddhists but that the Buddhists made Buddha.

 

WAS BUDDHA HISTORICAL?

 

I find this an interresting area of study, but I don't really care which turns out to be right.

You seem to. I see it more a matter of having some actual teeth to speak of when talking with True Believers™ who take the myths as literally true. I see taking a pure mythicist position to lack understanding about the role and purpose of myth, and thereby set themselves up for complete destruction when one little piece of actual hard evidence that Jesus did in fact exist historically comes along. In what I'm saying, I would bet bottom dollar it would only further support what I am saying. In your case, you would then validate the literalist. In my case, I'd further be able to support this understanding with more information that helped illuminate what we are already seeing in religions and social evolution the world over. Your faith would be shaken. I would just be more intrigued.

 

My reasons for leaving Christianity had nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed. If genuine, non forged evidence comes along, Mythicists will still have the 99% Mythical Jesus that performed Miracles and raised the dead. The Christians I've debated didn't seem to like the Jesus who performed no miracles and simply died an ignominious death any better than an entirely Mythical Jesus.

[qadeshet]

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that there is no controversy over Paul's existence, yet the evidence for the existence of christ wouldn't stand up in a court of law today?

 

Paul's existence has been questioned. I am seriously considering the theory that "Paul" and Simon Magus are one and the same. Marcion created Paul by adapting 1st century Simonian material. This would explain the serious disagreements between "Paul" and Cephas.

 

Roger Parvus has an interresting new post at Vridar.

 

Mark’s Parables as Simonian Allegories

[Antlerman]

This comparison is not very good. Joseph Smith and Jesus would be more the comparison, not Jesus and Moroni.

 

And to say there was not original about the teachings of Jesus, well, if they weren't unique then why have a religion start over them? Why not just take what already existed? This is true of any and all teachings that start new religions. Obviously, they have to be different enough. Common sense actually.

 

The better comparison is Jesus for Moroni and Paul for Joseph Smith. Show me one original teaching put in the mouth of Jesus. Show me one instance where Paul quotes any teachings from an historical Jesus.

Moroni was an angel. Jesus is portrayed as a human, who was born, lived, taught, and died. Jesus and Joseph Smith are the more accurate comparison. That was my point. Here's a test for you. Show me where in any of the synoptic Gospels Jesus is spoken of as God. As far as I see, they all show him as a human. A human of note, but not a god, or an angel. Only Gospel John speaks of him as Divine, and even then it's not all that clear it means what the later Church defined that to mean.

 

As far as something 'original', why does this even matter? Taking existing concepts and putting them together in a way that speaks to the situation better than whatever else is at the time makes it appropriate, and hence it is unique. Nothing else was doing it effectively at that time, so this would have not been just a copy-cat, but unique. The proof is in the pudding. It worked. It was successful. What is 'original' is the insight to bring it all together in such as way as it was effective in a way that succeeded.

 

Are you trying to say that you need to see that Jesus taught something no other human ever came up with in order to say he existed? Again, and I'm right on this it appears, you equate the historical Jesus with the Great Story myth. If that Jesus didn't exist. No Jesus ever existed. I do not make that error of reason.

 

You are saying there is no basis whatsoever for either Elijah or Moses to have been actual human beings, because the myths about them can't be true, therefore they didn't exist? I see the deep fault line in your views here.

 

Is there any evidence for Elijah or Moses outside the Bible? And if Moses didn't part the Red Sea and lead the Exodus, what exactly did he do? My contention is that without evidence external to the Myths themselves, we have every right to doubt historical reality. I demand actual evidence, not suppositions.

My god, why does there have to be?? Talk about a strawman argument! Of course Moses didn't literally part the Red Sea, rain frogs from heaven, or lead a mass Exodus of millions of people. My point is, and this is really not hard to follow, is that could very well likely have been, probable even, that there was some person of note that served as the basis for later myths. Why is that so hard to see as a possibility for you?

 

Personally, that makes a good deal more sense that he was. And I do believe that there was an historical Elijah, even though he may not have done the kinds of miracles that are said about him. Do you believe King David was real? He was. Do you believe he killed Goliath with a stone? No?

 

So your criteria for the historicity of anyone is some external corroboration? Let's see... prove to me you're 8th great grandmother existed. No records outside family stories and so-called "claims" of biased family members exist? Well, guess she didn't then, and you're a myth too, since a purely mythological person passed along their genes to you. Clearly, your criteria is deeply flawed.

 

 

Thanks for your time with this, but I'm going over the same points here that aren't not being addressed in your responses.

[stryper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEpZDhrnUOI

 

Granted it is Simcha Jacobovici....

 

However, I did find it to be a interesting take on the exodus story.

 

It very well could have been a real event in ancient history that became mythological over time.

 

Like many many other stories.

[Akheia]

Because there were some rich guys named Bruce in the 1950s, that proves Batman is TOTES REAL. We just don't know *which* rich guy named Bruce is the one responsible for the Batman myth, you see.

[mymistake]

Because there were some rich guys named Bruce in the 1950s, that proves Batman is TOTES REAL. We just don't know *which* rich guy named Bruce is the one responsible for the Batman myth, you see.

 

Ah but Akheia nobody here thinks a historical Jesus would legitimize the Bible or Christianity. We are all ex-Christians. We have all rejected Christianity as a worthless cult. If there was a historical Jesus that wouldn't change the fact that Christianity is a worthless cult. In my opinion the historical rabbis named Jesus (for there were many) undermine the legitimacy of Christianity. It makes the Bible even more made up because it's a patchwork of half-truths and exagerations and distortions all blended together and presented as something that doesn't reflect the historical rabbis named Jesus. The reality shines light on the deception.

[qadeshet]

This comparison is not very good. Joseph Smith and Jesus would be more the comparison, not Jesus and Moroni.

 

And to say there was not original about the teachings of Jesus, well, if they weren't unique then why have a religion start over them? Why not just take what already existed? This is true of any and all teachings that start new religions. Obviously, they have to be different enough. Common sense actually.

 

The better comparison is Jesus for Moroni and Paul for Joseph Smith. Show me one original teaching put in the mouth of Jesus. Show me one instance where Paul quotes any teachings from an historical Jesus.

Moroni was an angel. Jesus is portrayed as a human, who was born, lived, taught, and died. Jesus and Joseph Smith are the more accurate comparison. That was my point. Here's a test for you. Show me where in any of the synoptic Gospels Jesus is spoken of as God. As far as I see, they all show him as a human. A human of note, but not a god, or an angel. Only Gospel John speaks of him as Divine, and even then it's not all that clear it means what the later Church defined that to mean.

 

As far as something 'original', why does this even matter? Taking existing concepts and putting them together in a way that speaks to the situation better than whatever else is at the time makes it appropriate, and hence it is unique. Nothing else was doing it effectively at that time, so this would have not been just a copy-cat, but unique. The proof is in the pudding. It worked. It was successful. What is 'original' is the insight to bring it all together in such as way as it was effective in a way that succeeded.

 

Are you trying to say that you need to see that Jesus taught something no other human ever came up with in order to say he existed? Again, and I'm right on this it appears, you equate the historical Jesus with the Great Story myth. If that Jesus didn't exist. No Jesus ever existed. I do not make that error of reason.

 

Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus portrayed as a human. That's my point. No human has ever been born of a virgin, walked on water, raised the dead, or ascended to Heaven. This is the Jesus of the Gospels, not some human. Paul's Cosmic Christ, who was killed by the Princes of this World(Demonic beings) is closer to Moroni than to Joseph Smith. We have numerous contemporary referrences and writings regarding Joseph Smith, none for Jesus.

 

The only Jesus that Paul claimed to know was the Christ from his visions. He shows no knowledge of, nor does he ever quote any sayings of, an Historical Jesus. You are using the Gospels, written, at the earliest, maybe 50 years after the supposed time of Jesus, and other Christion documents, to prove an Historical Jesus. This is a circular argument. The Myth of the Great Man doesn't even require an actual historical figure. Ned Ludd is a good example. The error of reason is to trust the Christian writings.

 

You are saying there is no basis whatsoever for either Elijah or Moses to have been actual human beings, because the myths about them can't be true, therefore they didn't exist? I see the deep fault line in your views here.

 

My god, why does there have to be?? Talk about a strawman argument! Of course Moses didn't literally part the Red Sea, rain frogs from heaven, or lead a mass Exodus of millions of people. My point is, and this is really not hard to follow, is that could very well likely have been, probable even, that there was some person of note that served as the basis for later myths. Why is that so hard to see as a possibility for you?

 

I grant the possibility of many things, including the possibility that some Myths may have a historical basis. The Big Bad Wolf may not have been able to talk, but that doesn't prove that Little Red Riding Hood didn't exist. I just don't put the probability very high. As far as Moses and Elijah, I consider the probability low.

 

Why does there have to evidence outside the Bible to show the historical reality of Moses, David, Abraham, Joshua, Lot's wife, Adam and Eve, Cain, Abel, Jacob? What about the Serpent in the Garden? Contemporary Historical accounts and Archaeological remains are how we determine Historicity, not words in some Holy Book. If I still believed the Bible, I might still be a Christian.

 

Personally, that makes a good deal more sense that he was. And I do believe that there was an historical Elijah, even though he may not have done the kinds of miracles that are said about him. Do you believe King David was real? He was. Do you believe he killed Goliath with a stone? No?

 

So your criteria for the historicity of anyone is some external corroboration? Let's see... prove to me you're 8th great grandmother existed. No records outside family stories and so-called "claims" of biased family members exist? Well, guess she didn't then, and you're a myth too, since a purely mythological person passed along their genes to you. Clearly, your criteria is deeply flawed.

 

Thanks for your time with this, but I'm going over the same points here that aren't not being addressed in your responses.

 

Evidently your criteria for Historicity is different from mine. I put a premium on evidence and the methods of actual Historians.

 

How Historians Work — Lessons for historical Jesus scholars

 

No one cares if there was a small town carpenter named Bryan 2000 years ago, nor would anyone have mentioned him. Nor does anyone care whether my Grandmother 8 times removed existed or not. Major Historical figures and events are a different matter. We have a great deal of Primary Evidence for Alexander and Julius Caesar. Do I believe that King David was real? Not without evidence. Kings David and Solomon should have been mentioned in the King's Lists of Babylon, Assyria, or Egypt. They may have been hill country Chieftans too unimportant to mention. You believe that there was an Historical Jesus based on late Christian documents that talk about an Earthly, not human, Jesus. If you are going to argue that late Christian beliefs prove an Historical Jesus, that's fine. You believe in a human founder named Jesus. I agree with the possibility, not the probability. I will stick with the evidence.

[mcdaddy]

What qade said.

[mymistake]

I just don't put the probability very high. As far as Moses and Elijah, I consider the probability low.

 

An historical Moses isn't a guy wandering in the desert, isn't a law giver, isn't Jewish. An historical Moses is an Egyptian who was in a positoin of some kind of power, in palestine when the Egyptian empire collapesed due to an attack by the Sea People. His name would have been (something)moses. Over time the details of his life were lost and replaced by myth. That such a person existed doesn't legimize the Bible. Rather it undermines the Bible as a complete distortion of what actually happened. This is much the same way that an historical Jesus would undermine the New Testament.

 

Storeis about George Wasthington skipping a sliver dollar or cutting down a tree do not mean the man never existed. Rather the truth about the man's existence undermines the legendary stories about him.

[qadeshet]

I just don't put the probability very high. As far as Moses and Elijah, I consider the probability low.

 

An historical Moses isn't a guy wandering in the desert, isn't a law giver, isn't Jewish. An historical Moses is an Egyptian who was in a positoin of some kind of power, in palestine when the Egyptian empire collapesed due to an attack by the Sea People. His name would have been (something)moses. Over time the details of his life were lost and replaced by myth. That such a person existed doesn't legimize the Bible. Rather it undermines the Bible as a complete distortion of what actually happened. This is much the same way that an historical Jesus would undermine the New Testament.

 

Storeis about George Wasthington skipping a sliver dollar or cutting down a tree do not mean the man never existed. Rather the truth about the man's existence undermines the legendary stories about him.

 

I believe you are referring to Ahmose I who expelled the Hyksos. This is probably the best explanation for the origin of the Exodus Myth. I believe that this expulsion coincided with the eruption of Thera, which virtually wiped out the Minoan civilization.

[Antlerman]

Contemporary Historical accounts and Archaeological remains are how we determine Historicity, not words in some Holy Book. If I still believed the Bible, I might still be a Christian.

Now we get to the core of this approach of "Evidence! Damnit!". It appears as I have suspected. It does threaten your beliefs. "If I still believed the Bible, I might still be a Christian".

 

No, your approach to "FACTS, Damnit" in determining the probabilities of history are not how history is done. It is not dependent solely on these things.

 

Evidently your criteria for Historicity is different from mine. I put a premium on evidence and the methods of actual Historians.

You place your faith on them, it appears.

 

No one cares if there was a small town carpenter named Bryan 2000 years ago, nor would anyone have mentioned him. Nor does anyone care whether my Grandmother 8 times removed existed or not. Major Historical figures and events are a different matter.

Oh, so it's a matter of quality? It's a matter of how much it threatens your worldview? BTW, there is no such thing as a grandmother 8 times removed. Those would be cousins, not a grandparent. In my other area of interest, I am a historian too. I'm a genealogist. She would simply be your 8th great grandmother - who apparently doesn't exist because there were no church records then in her area, or they were lost or destroyed, or she was nobody of consequence, but then it's okay for her to exist, or at least believe she did.

 

We have a great deal of Primary Evidence for Alexander and Julius Caesar. Do I believe that King David was real? Not without evidence. Kings David and Solomon should have been mentioned in the King's Lists of Babylon, Assyria, or Egypt. They may have been hill country Chieftans too unimportant to mention. You believe that there was an Historical Jesus based on late Christian documents that talk about an Earthly, not human, Jesus. If you are going to argue that late Christian beliefs prove an Historical Jesus, that's fine. You believe in a human founder named Jesus. I agree with the possibility, not the probability.

I do not believe in a historical person named Jesus upon which the later myths were layered because of later accounts. You've never asked why I do. Why is that?

 

I will stick with the evidence.

No, you will stick with the lack of evidence as evidence of lack. Be honest about this. There is no such thing as evidence of a negative.

[mymistake]

I do not believe in a historical person named Jesus upon which the later myths were layered because of later accounts.

 

Okay I'm curious. How do you think the theology got started and why do you think that is so. (Sorry if you covered it elsewhere. If so just give me a thread title and aprox date so I know where to look.)

[mcdaddy]

First "xians" read the tanakh, figure out (acc to their interpretation) that "god has a son". They use certain passages (i.e. suffering servant and others) to deduce what this son was like, what he did, etc. possibly got the name "Jesus/yeshua/whatever" from Zechariah, where the high priest was named Jesus. Also used lots of prophecies from Zechariah to put together the Jesus myth. Started out with few details, but later authors added more info because it was in demand. Oversimplification obviously- on a cell phone.

[Akheia]

Brilliantly put, Qadeshet. I'm a history wonk. I dabble professionally in history. I have standards when it comes to admitting evidence for claims. I'm not going to set those aside because someone thinks it's "possible" there "might" have been a real Jesus. The evidence does not support that claim. Like the rest of real science, in history we use evidence. We make hypotheses. We test them. We use falsifiable theories. We adjust theories as needed with the evidence. And we can make predictions based upon those theories. This last part is the most important for non-believers. We can look around our world and say "hmm.... if there was no omnimax god, what would the world look like? Oh! Just like this one!" And we can do the exact same thing for the claim that there was a specific flesh-and-blood man who inspired the Gospels. "If there was no historical Jesus, what would we expect to find? Oh! No evidence at all for him, nowhere, not even a little." I'm dead serious, reading this thread has in many ways reminded me of why I don't like arguing with creationists. I don't place "faith" in historical methods. It's not a matter of faith any more than accepting science means I have "faith" in science. Historical methods work. Faith does not. If you have evidence, I'll listen. I'm not going to disprove a claim but I'm also not going to buy snake oil on the basis that it "might" work.

 

AM, the problem with your vision of things is this. Even if rock-solid evidence emerged of *one* of the various skinny-assed messianic nuts running around Judea at the time preaching the end of the world, even if *a* Yeshuah emerged blinking and surprised from his two-thousand-year oblivion, there'd be nothing tying *that* Yeshuah to the one in the Bible. The portrait the Bible paints of Yeshuah is so clearly mythic and has so many impossible or contradictory elements that once those are removed, there isn't enough left in the Bible to prove or disprove anything or anybody particularly. You're making an assumption that the discovery of a "historical" Jesus would threaten my worldview and that's not at all true. It doesn't threaten me any more than the discovery of a historical Buddha did. I'm still open to the emergence of evidence to support that claim. I'm just a lot more vocal about there being none now than I used to be.

 

I guess that's my entire problem with the Gospels. Remove the myth elements from it, and there just isn't much there upon which to base any sort of opinion on what kind of man Jesus would have been. That's how Christians over the ages have managed to reinvent the idea of Jesus in so many different ways--from the suffering servant to the triumphant Lord and Master to the Buddy Boyfriend Jesus to the MURKUN JAYSUS wearing an American flag and wielding a gun. I spent quite a while convinced I had a friend in him, but I sure didn't have any idea what he was like, and neither did anybody else. That's the whole point. Myths don't absolutely require a "real" spark, as the Scientologists could tell you, but even if this myth had one, he's so far removed from the myth that it's going to be really hard to link him definitively to it. How far *do* you remove the man from the myth before you're left with more myth than man? I'd say the answer to that question lies on bookshelves in almost every home in the Western world.

[qadeshet]

Contemporary Historical accounts and Archaeological remains are how we determine Historicity, not words in some Holy Book. If I still believed the Bible, I might still be a Christian.

Now we get to the core of this approach of "Evidence! Damnit!". It appears as I have suspected. It does threaten your beliefs. "If I still believed the Bible, I might still be a Christian".

 

No, your approach to "FACTS, Damnit" in determining the probabilities of history are not how history is done. It is not dependent solely on these things.

 

If you still believed the Bible, would you still be a Christian? I don't trust any of the Christian writings. My Worldview is that no god created the World in 7 Days, that there was no Deluge, that the Bible is a collection of Myths and Legends created by men, and that there was no Jesus who was born of a Virgin, performed any Miracles, rose from the dead, or ascended to Heaven. I don't see how a 1st Century Guru or Prophet who may or may not have been named Yeshua would change that.

 

No one cares if there was a small town carpenter named Bryan 2000 years ago, nor would anyone have mentioned him. Nor does anyone care whether my Grandmother 8 times removed existed or not. Major Historical figures and events are a different matter.

Oh, so it's a matter of quality? It's a matter of how much it threatens your worldview? BTW, there is no such thing as a grandmother 8 times removed. Those would be cousins, not a grandparent. In my other area of interest, I am a historian too. I'm a genealogist. She would simply be your 8th great grandmother - who apparently doesn't exist because there were no church records then in her area, or they were lost or destroyed, or she was nobody of consequence, but then it's okay for her to exist, or at least believe she did.

Oh, so it's a matter of quality? It's a matter of how much it threatens your worldview? BTW, there is no such thing as a grandmother 8 times removed. Those would be cousins, not a grandparent. In my other area of interest, I am a historian too. I'm a genealogist. She would simply be your 8th great grandmother - who apparently doesn't exist because there were no church records then in her area, or they were lost or destroyed, or she was nobody of consequence, but then it's okay for her to exist, or at least believe she did.

 

As a Genealogist, do you take hearsay evidence when building your Genealogical Tree? My Grandfather told my Mother that William the Conquerer is my Ancestor. Can I take that to the bank? No one has said that you can't believe in a Historical Jesus if you want. I also have the right not to believe in your Historical "Jesus".

 

We have a great deal of Primary Evidence for Alexander and Julius Caesar. Do I believe that King David was real? Not without evidence. Kings David and Solomon should have been mentioned in the King's Lists of Babylon, Assyria, or Egypt. They may have been hill country Chieftans too unimportant to mention. You believe that there was an Historical Jesus based on late Christian documents that talk about an Earthly, not human, Jesus. If you are going to argue that late Christian beliefs prove an Historical Jesus, that's fine. You believe in a human founder named Jesus. I agree with the possibility, not the probability.

I do not believe in a historical person named Jesus upon which the later myths were layered because of later accounts. You've never asked why I do. Why is that?

 

If you had any actual evidence to present, you would have already presented it. All you have are arguments, not evidence. It would be nice if we had any documentation from early Christianity, but we don't. No one knows who wrote any of the Epistles or Gospels or when they were written. There is no evidence of belief in a Historical Jesus before the 2nd Century.

 

 

I will stick with the evidence.

No, you will stick with the lack of evidence as evidence of lack. Be honest about this. There is no such thing as evidence of a negative.

 

 

"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." is a favorite Fundy excuse. Since we can't prove that the Jewish Tribal War God doesn't exist, therefore he exists. I think that my position is pretty clear. Without Primary Evidence, we have every right to doubt a Historical Jesus. I'm beginning to suspect that you're playing the Devil's Advocate.

[♦ ficino ♦]

. Even if rock-solid evidence emerged of *one* of the various skinny-assed messianic nuts running around Judea at the time preaching the end of the world, even if *a* Yeshuah emerged blinking and surprised from his two-thousand-year oblivion, there'd be nothing tying *that* Yeshuah to the one in the Bible.

 

Does this apply to fat-assed messianic nuts too? lol

 

Good post, Akh. I have a question for you about falsifiability of hypotheses about historical claims, but I'll save it for elsewhere so as not to derail this thread.

[qadeshet]

Contemporary Historical accounts and Archaeological remains are how we determine Historicity, not words in some Holy Book. If I still believed the Bible, I might still be a Christian.

Now we get to the core of this approach of "Evidence! Damnit!". It appears as I have suspected. It does threaten your beliefs. "If I still believed the Bible, I might still be a Christian".

No, your approach to "FACTS, Damnit" in determining the probabilities of history are not how history is done. It is not dependent solely on these things.

 

If you still believed the Bible, would you still be a Christian? I don't trust any of the Christian writings. My Worldview is that no god created the World in 7 Days, that there was no Deluge, that the Bible is a collection of Myths and Legends created by men, and that there was no Jesus who was born of a Virgin, performed any Miracles, rose from the dead, or ascended to Heaven. I don't see how a 1st Century Guru or Prophet who may or may not have been named Yeshua would change that.

 

No one cares if there was a small town carpenter named Bryan 2000 years ago, nor would anyone have mentioned him. Nor does anyone care whether my Grandmother 8 times removed existed or not. Major Historical figures and events are a different matter.

Oh, so it's a matter of quality? It's a matter of how much it threatens your worldview? BTW, there is no such thing as a grandmother 8 times removed. Those would be cousins, not a grandparent. In my other area of interest, I am a historian too. I'm a genealogist. She would simply be your 8th great grandmother - who apparently doesn't exist because there were no church records then in her area, or they were lost or destroyed, or she was nobody of consequence, but then it's okay for her to exist, or at least believe she did.

 

As a Genealogist, do you take hearsay evidence when building your Genealogical Tree? My Grandfather told my Mother that William the Conquerer is my Ancestor. Can I take that to the bank? No one has said that you can't believe in a Historical Jesus if you want. I also have the right not to believe in your Historical "Jesus".

 

We have a great deal of Primary Evidence for Alexander and Julius Caesar. Do I believe that King David was real? Not without evidence. Kings David and Solomon should have been mentioned in the King's Lists of Babylon, Assyria, or Egypt. They may have been hill country Chieftans too unimportant to mention. You believe that there was an Historical Jesus based on late Christian documents that talk about an Earthly, not human, Jesus. If you are going to argue that late Christian beliefs prove an Historical Jesus, that's fine. You believe in a human founder named Jesus. I agree with the possibility, not the probability.

I do not believe in a historical person named Jesus upon which the later myths were layered because of later accounts. You've never asked why I do. Why is that?

 

If you had any actual evidence to present, you would have already presented it. All you have are arguments, not evidence. It would be nice if we had any documentation from early Christianity, but we don't. No one knows who wrote any of the Epistles or Gospels or when they were written. There is no evidence of belief in a Historical Jesus before the 2nd Century.

 

I will stick with the evidence.

No, you will stick with the lack of evidence as evidence of lack. Be honest about this. There is no such thing as evidence of a negative.

 

"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." is a favorite Fundy excuse. Since we can't prove that the Jewish Tribal War God doesn't exist, therefore he exists. I think that my position is pretty clear. Without Primary Evidence, we have every right to doubt a Historical Jesus. I'm beginning to suspect that you're playing the Devil's Advocate.

[qadeshet]

Brilliantly put, Qadeshet. I'm a history wonk. I dabble professionally in history. I have standards when it comes to admitting evidence for claims. I'm not going to set those aside because someone thinks it's "possible" there "might" have been a real Jesus. The evidence does not support that claim. Like the rest of real science, in history we use evidence. We make hypotheses. We test them. We use falsifiable theories. We adjust theories as needed with the evidence. And we can make predictions based upon those theories. This last part is the most important for non-believers. We can look around our world and say "hmm.... if there was no omnimax god, what would the world look like? Oh! Just like this one!" And we can do the exact same thing for the claim that there was a specific flesh-and-blood man who inspired the Gospels. "If there was no historical Jesus, what would we expect to find? Oh! No evidence at all for him, nowhere, not even a little." I'm dead serious, reading this thread has in many ways reminded me of why I don't like arguing with creationists. I don't place "faith" in historical methods. It's not a matter of faith any more than accepting science means I have "faith" in science. Historical methods work. Faith does not. If you have evidence, I'll listen. I'm not going to disprove a claim but I'm also not going to buy snake oil on the basis that it "might" work.

 

AM, the problem with your vision of things is this. Even if rock-solid evidence emerged of *one* of the various skinny-assed messianic nuts running around Judea at the time preaching the end of the world, even if *a* Yeshuah emerged blinking and surprised from his two-thousand-year oblivion, there'd be nothing tying *that* Yeshuah to the one in the Bible. The portrait the Bible paints of Yeshuah is so clearly mythic and has so many impossible or contradictory elements that once those are removed, there isn't enough left in the Bible to prove or disprove anything or anybody particularly. You're making an assumption that the discovery of a "historical" Jesus would threaten my worldview and that's not at all true. It doesn't threaten me any more than the discovery of a historical Buddha did. I'm still open to the emergence of evidence to support that claim. I'm just a lot more vocal about there being none now than I used to be.

 

I guess that's my entire problem with the Gospels. Remove the myth elements from it, and there just isn't much there upon which to base any sort of opinion on what kind of man Jesus would have been. That's how Christians over the ages have managed to reinvent the idea of Jesus in so many different ways--from the suffering servant to the triumphant Lord and Master to the Buddy Boyfriend Jesus to the MURKUN JAYSUS wearing an American flag and wielding a gun. I spent quite a while convinced I had a friend in him, but I sure didn't have any idea what he was like, and neither did anybody else. That's the whole point. Myths don't absolutely require a "real" spark, as the Scientologists could tell you, but even if this myth had one, he's so far removed from the myth that it's going to be really hard to link him definitively to it. How far *do* you remove the man from the myth before you're left with more myth than man? I'd say the answer to that question lies on bookshelves in almost every home in the Western world.

 

Without Primary Evidence, all we have is credulity.

[Akheia]

At least you have the myth that you have someone famous in the family, Qadeshet. As far as I know, my entire extended family was dirt farmers on both sides all the way down. I'm getting into genealogy at some point here Real Soon Now and it's going to be a hoot if I find out we're Dutch royalty or something.

 

Ficino, as always I'm glad to be corrected. I just don't like the idea that as long as we're talking about Jesus, the usual rules about methodology don't have to be followed. There's nothing special about Jesus as compared to any other mythic figure. We don't have anything of him but agenda-driven second-hand accounts in one single document whose veracity has hardly been unassailable, so any assertion of his historicity by definition has to demand we discard our usual rigor. That alone makes me distrust the idea of his existence.

[Antlerman]

"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." is a favorite Fundy excuse.

There's a lot of crap fundies latch onto an use and abuse for their own illegitimate ends. That doesn't make what they rip off for their own ends illegitimate. I believe there is a fallacy in what you are saying. Oh yes, the True Scotsman.

 

Are you saying that you can prove a negative? I recall the ambassador of Iraq saying to George W. Bush before we invaded their country, "How do we prove a negative? How do we prove we don't have weapons of mass destruction if we don't have any?" Well, I guess they were right? They couldn't prove a negative, and here we are today. Guess we used a fallacy to justify military action? How many have died now? (When good reason goes bad.... but wait, Bush is a fundy... He should have known this favorite argument of fundies, right? )

 

Since we can't prove that the Jewish Tribal War God doesn't exist, therefore he exists.

Who the fuck thinks like that? Wow, how, "If you're not for me, than you're against me", black and white logic.

 

I think that my position is pretty clear. Without Primary Evidence, we have every right to doubt a Historical Jesus.

Every right to doubt ---- absolutely! I've never said otherwise. You however, conclude. That is a fallacy, and I suggest motivated by some faith need on your part.

 

I'm beginning to suspect that you're playing the Devil's Advocate.

If I were, you'd do well to examine your reasoning here through it.