There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[Ouroboros]

I have my suspicion who the "spark" to the Jesus figure could've been. But I'll save it for a later discussion. Just saying.

[Antlerman]

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, but you can't dismiss it out of hand either. I've run with plenty of leads like this through family lore, and often there is some kernel of truth, even if not as flamboyant as the legends go. I'm supposed related to General Lee. My 2nd great grandmother is said to be 1st cousin to him. That I can disprove outright, but my research has shown there is a possible, unconfirmed connection back through the Viscount Howe family. But that is hard to find hard data to confirm.

 

Now, according to you there is no truth whatsoever to the Lee connection since hard data lacks. I however don't rule it out, and like this one example, there is a definite intuition you have to use with these things, that more times than I can begin to count have in fact been confirmed at some point, and then thereafter is validated over and over again as more information is uncovered. But to you, stop looking, End of story. No hard evidence.

 

That's being a lousy historian, IMHO. Science works that way too you know - hunches, intuition, etc. Not, "If there is no evidence, it doesn't exist!" Wow. How thoroughly Modernity. And that, is what separates how we approach knowledge and understanding.

 

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".

As I said, it's a matter of faith to you. I have a very strong impression that a real Jesus did exist, but I'm not going to state it as an emphatic fact. You are stating, concluding he didn't exist. You assume it's a matter of 'just believing' for me, as it is for yourself.

 

I'm going to bow out of this discussion as this point as we're not going to be able to get past the mindset differences here in how you approach knowledge and truth. Yours is very much drawing from a sort of popularized version of the creation that came out of Modernity called Postivism, and I come more from the Postmodern, and post-postmodern approach which incorporates both Modernity and Postmodernity. It's simply a different way of processing information and seeing truth and shaping worldviews.

 

I've already made my points.

[Akheia]

I heard once about some ascetic Hebrew guru who existed in the 2nd-c BCE or so. Bit of an Obiwan Kenobi sort from the sound of it. Can't remember the guy's name for the life of me. If I had to put odds, it'd be him though, well before I'd consider any of the passel of Jesuses/Yeshuahs floating around Jerusalem in the 1st-c CE.

[Ouroboros]

I heard once about some ascetic Hebrew guru who existed in the 2nd-c BCE or so. Bit of an Obiwan Kenobi sort from the sound of it. Can't remember the guy's name for the life of me. If I had to put odds, it'd be him though, well before I'd consider any of the passel of Jesuses/Yeshuahs floating around Jerusalem in the 1st-c CE.

Actually, I think it's three consecutive people. One started, one took over and did something else, and a third took it to another level. Then the foundation for the myth was made. But it's just my speculation and I can't prove it.

[TrueFreedom]

An actual John the Baptist is on record...

[Ouroboros]

Myths don't absolutely require a "real" spark, as the Scientologists could tell you,

Who was L. Ron Hubbard?

[mcdaddy]

I have my suspicion who the "spark" to the Jesus figure could've been. But I'll save it for a later discussion. Just saying.

 

Now thats just immature!!

 

[Ouroboros]

Now thats just immature!!

Well, I don't think I even hinted at being suicidal, and since I don't have a death wish, I rather chew my head off than bring up my speculations. It's pure self-preservation here.

[mcdaddy]

Now thats just immature!!

Well, I don't think I even hinted at being suicidal, and since I don't have a death wish, I rather chew my head off than bring up my speculations. It's pure self-preservation here.

 

you think its Yeshua ben Pandira or whoever? just my guess.

[Ouroboros]

you think its Yeshua ben Pandira or whoever? just my guess.

You're kidding, right? Trying to hook me? Fat chance. Btw, it's not an act of maturity to jump of a cliff to certain death. Weeeeeee... *pof*

 

---

 

But the answer is... no. Not Yeshua Ben Pandira.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Ficino, as always I'm glad to be corrected.

Oh, no, my question, if I get around to asking it, is an information seeking question about falsifiability, not a lead-in to a counter-argument.

[Antlerman]

you think its Yeshua ben Pandira or whoever? just my guess.

You're kidding, right? Trying to hook me? Fat chance. Btw, it's not an act of maturity to jump of a cliff to certain death. Weeeeeee... *pof*

I'll put out a possibility, but I'm not saying I believe it. It's possible he is the "false priest", or "the man of lies" that the Essenes wrote of. The reason for that as a possibility is because we have have John the Baptist who is confirmed as an actual historical person, to the best of my knowledge, and the story of Jesus woven together with him. It is possible that both John and Jesus were from the Essene community, and that Jesus went off a completely different direction than that of the Baptist, call it a 'conversion experience' for Jesus, which is why you can see certain rivalries laying in between the lines of the Biblical accounts, "I must diminish that you may increase", etc. The teachings of Jesus can be seen as departing from the harsh teachings of separation of the Essenes, and if there was a major shift in his views and what he subsequently preached, this would make him a betrayer of them, "the man of lies" or the "false priest". That rivalry between John's camp and Jesus' camp had another side to it.

 

Possible, but not "hard proof" by any means. Interesting if so though!

[qadeshet]

you think its Yeshua ben Pandira or whoever? just my guess.

You're kidding, right? Trying to hook me? Fat chance. Btw, it's not an act of maturity to jump of a cliff to certain death. Weeeeeee... *pof*

I'll put out a possibility, but I'm not saying I believe it. It's possible he is the "false priest", or "the man of lies" that the Essenes wrote of. The reason for that as a possibility is because we have have John the Baptist who is confirmed as an actual historical person, to the best of my knowledge, and the story of Jesus woven together with him. It is possible that both John and Jesus were from the Essene community, and that Jesus went off a completely different direction than that of the Baptist, call it a 'conversion experience' for Jesus, which is why you can see certain rivalries laying in between the lines of the Biblical accounts, "I must diminish that you may increase", etc. The teachings of Jesus can be seen as departing from the harsh teachings of separation of the Essenes, and if there was a major shift in his views and what he subsequently preached, this would make him a betrayer of them, "the man of lies" or the "false priest". That rivalry between John's camp and Jesus' camp had another side to it.

 

Possible, but not "hard proof" by any means. Interesting if so though!

 

If you want a "Jesus", you might like "Jesus" the Samaritan.

 

The fourth incident written by Josephus concerns the Samaritans. A religious fanatic stirred the Samaritans to climb Mt. Gerizim with him, and they assembled in a village nearby. They were armed, and Pilate probably mistook it for a rebellion. He had his men block their route. Some were killed, many were taken prisoner, and the leaders put to death. This was the last recorded incident of his rule as prefect of Judea, for the Samaritans complained to Vitellius who was the legate of Syria. Vitellius ordered Pilate to go to Rome, but by the time Pilate got there, Tiberius was already dead. The new emperor, Gaious, did not reappoint Pilate but what actually happened during the trial is unknown. Pilate may have accepted another commission.

[♦ ficino ♦]

you think its Yeshua ben Pandira or whoever? just my guess.

You're kidding, right? Trying to hook me? Fat chance. Btw, it's not an act of maturity to jump of a cliff to certain death. Weeeeeee... *pof*

I'll put out a possibility, but I'm not saying I believe it. It's possible he is the "false priest", or "the man of lies" that the Essenes wrote of.

Hey Aman, interesting idea. Can you say more about the source that ties the "man of lies" to the Essenes? This isn't a phrase from documents found at Qumran, is it?

[♦ ficino ♦]

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.

 

Hi Akheia, maybe my question is germane to the thread, so I'll throw it out there. Do you think there are hypotheses that are useful for historical research but are not, strictly speaking, falsifiable? E.g. take two claims:

1. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

2. Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction.

 

2. could be falsified if the WMDs are found and proved to have been under the control of Saddam's govt. I don't see how 2. could be verified (this is what you meant, Aman, by saying you can't prove a negative, right?). But it seems as though we can get to practical certainty that 2. is true if repeated attempts to find the WMDs end in failure. Each failed attempt makes 2. a stronger hypothesis, or claim.

 

I'm actually more intrigued by 1. It cannot be falsified, strictly speaking, though it can "prove its mettle" (in Karl Popper's terms) as noted above. But can we dismiss it as "woo" or the like? I'd really like to know when this point of dismissal is reached, and who has the right to assert it. For example, Troy was considered mythical by many in the 19th cent. but the hypothesis that it was historical spurred Schliemann to dig it up (I leave out his mistakes, bad methods, fraudulent details in his diary, etc.). It was possible in principle to verify it, as it was not possible to verify that Achilles' horses wept. We wouldn't want to say that "Troy existed" was not a historical hypothesis, do we? So what epistemic status does such a claim have - or 1. above, or claims about stuff asserted in the Bible?

 

----------------------- edited:

 

Just realized that it makes a difference how precisely the hypothesis is framed. "Troy was historical" is too vague to have predictive value. But something like "Homer's description of Troy [and those in other ancient sources] gives information by which we can dig it up" is specific enough to work with, make predictions from, and test those predictions. "Troy is buried under the hill at Hissarlik" was a research hypothesis based on Homer's geography and specific enough for Schliemann to verify or falsify.

 

For the historical Jesus, a hypothesis appropriate to historical research would have to be specific enough to predict results. We could then test those predictions.

 

From what I see, what we get doesn't stand up to what we would reasonably predict. Either the evidence is lacking or insufficient, or it collapses into circularity because it is derived from documents, the truth of which is asserted on the basis of belief in Jesus.

[qadeshet]

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, but you can't dismiss it out of hand either. I've run with plenty of leads like this through family lore, and often there is some kernel of truth, even if not as flamboyant as the legends go. I'm supposed related to General Lee. My 2nd great grandmother is said to be 1st cousin to him. That I can disprove outright, but my research has shown there is a possible, unconfirmed connection back through the Viscount Howe family. But that is hard to find hard data to confirm.

 

Now, according to you there is no truth whatsoever to the Lee connection since hard data lacks. I however don't rule it out, and like this one example, there is a definite intuition you have to use with these things, that more times than I can begin to count have in fact been confirmed at some point, and then thereafter is validated over and over again as more information is uncovered. But to you, stop looking, End of story. No hard evidence.

 

That's being a lousy historian, IMHO. Science works that way too you know - hunches, intuition, etc. Not, "If there is no evidence, it doesn't exist!" Wow. How thoroughly Modernity. And that, is what separates how we approach knowledge and understanding.

 

If there is no evidence, it may not exist.

 

If Science worked strictly through hunches and intuition, not thorough testing, I certainly wouldn't fly in a plane. I certainly wouldn't trust a credulus Historian who simply reported hearsay as truth. You seem not to understand Primary Evidence, like contemporary historical accounts and Archaeological remains. If we had any of this we wouldn't have to believe in an historical Jesus.

 

 

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".

As I said, it's a matter of faith to you. I have a very strong impression that a real Jesus did exist, but I'm not going to state it as an emphatic fact. You are stating, concluding he didn't exist. You assume it's a matter of 'just believing' for me, as it is for yourself.

 

Believing without evidence is called Faith. I have gone over all the evidence I can find. And I will certainly examine any new research that becomes available. You are asking me to have Faith in your Historical "Jesus", without evidence. At present, I consider the probability of an Historical Jesus to be around 30%. No one I know of claims 100% certainty on this subject, except Theologians.

[Antlerman]

If Science worked strictly through hunches and intuition, not thorough testing, I certainly wouldn't fly in a plane.

I enjoy watching how you re-frame my statements to make it sound in error, and yours correctly. Did I ever say, or suggest, they work "strictly" through intuition? I thought I was quite clear in my word choices. No, I was clear. You heard what how you would hear something that doesn't fit how you see things. I said that without intuition, something that lacks evidence to make it a fact, you wouldn't have much progress in science. I compare this to how you do history. "If there is no hard evidence it doesn't exist". Then I ask the question, what would make you consider looking into any possibilities then?

 

Positivism is a failed philosophy. No human operates on "pure evidence only". Sounds good on paper, offers a nice way to not look at things you don't want to, but is utterly unrealistic to how humans function.

 

I certainly wouldn't trust a credulus Historian who simply reported hearsay as truth. You seem not to understand Primary Evidence, like contemporary historical accounts and Archaeological remains. If we had any of this we wouldn't have to believe in an historical Jesus.

It would be fun for someone with the time to go through the long lists of historical figures we have and eliminate all of them but those who fit your criteria for being considered historical. I suspect it would thin out to less than a couple thousand, maybe a few hundred or so even. So much for world population before the modern census!

 

You're doing what the fundamentalists do in trying to make the Bible scientific and historical facts. It needs to be either factual, or false. There is very little room for anything less that clean black and white lines. Again, the earmark of a popular misconception of science and history, making them the Authority of Facts™. Blah... The world isn't so neat and simple, believe as hard and has as much hope and faith it can be.

 

Believing without evidence is called Faith.

There are many things that are called faith, such as believing you can conclude facts in the way you do.

 

I have gone over all the evidence I can find. And I will certainly examine any new research that becomes available. You are asking me to have Faith in your Historical "Jesus", without evidence. At present, I consider the probability of an Historical Jesus to be around 30%. No one I know of claims 100% certainty on this subject, except Theologians.

So you have a 30% probability of a historical Jesus? That's pretty substantial! Why are so dogmatic then? That's high enough of a probability to be definitely worthy of not ruling it out. I'd be curious to hear your reasoning that allows for that surprisingly high percentage. What are you looking at that makes it that high?

[Akheia]

Ficino - that's exactly what I mean. There should be a way to know if something's not supported, and a way to know if something is. We should be able to make predictions that can be supported or not supported. I don't view history as being a lot different from, say, astronomy. How the question is framed makes a big difference. That's why I really want to know just what we're talking about when we talk about a historical Jesus. I've thrown out how I'd frame that question already--the criteria I'd use, the evidence I'd be looking for, etc. To me the question is black or white when framed in terms of the Bible's stated biography. By that standard there is no way the Jesus contained therein existed as presented. But the ultimate truth about who Mark's author might have had in mind when he made up his gospel might be a lot more nebulous. It just feels like we get further and further away from defining what we mean. The idea of a holy man who said some pithy things and had a following of some sort at generally the right time is such a vague sort of criteria that it's all but meaningless to me. For all we know, Mark had the wrong guy in mind entirely a la Life of Brian, or was conflating the stories of several different men, or was just pulling the story out of his ass based on a general rumor that he'd heard a while back.

 

Ultimately, AM and ASM are right, I think, about the main thing being not what we do with a historical or non-historical Jesus, but how we deal with the religion that came from the pens of those who came much later and turned him into a much grander figure than he'd originally been. To me the question of whether or not a Jesus Christ existed is one of those nuts I like to worry at, like figuring out exactly where a particular historical figure's house was in Renaissance Rome. Sometimes we're just going to have to go with that intuition. I'm not convinced that this question--whether or not one of the most important figures in human history might have existed or not--is one of those times though.

[qadeshet]

If Science worked strictly through hunches and intuition, not thorough testing, I certainly wouldn't fly in a plane.

I enjoy watching how you re-frame my statements to make it sound in error, and yours correctly. Did I ever say, or suggest, they work "strictly" through intuition? I thought I was quite clear in my word choices. No, I was clear. You heard what how you would hear something that doesn't fit how you see things. I said that without intuition, something that lacks evidence to make it a fact, you wouldn't have much progress in science. I compare this to how you do history. "If there is no hard evidence it doesn't exist". Then I ask the question, what would make you consider looking into any possibilities then?

 

Positivism is a failed philosophy. No human operates on "pure evidence only". Sounds good on paper, offers a nice way to not look at things you don't want to, but is utterly unrealistic to how humans function.

 

I certainly wouldn't trust a credulus Historian who simply reported hearsay as truth. You seem not to understand Primary Evidence, like contemporary historical accounts and Archaeological remains. If we had any of this we wouldn't have to believe in an historical Jesus.

It would be fun for someone with the time to go through the long lists of historical figures we have and eliminate all of them but those who fit your criteria for being considered historical. I suspect it would thin out to less than a couple thousand, maybe a few hundred or so even. So much for world population before the modern census!

 

You're doing what the fundamentalists do in trying to make the Bible scientific and historical facts. It needs to be either factual, or false. There is very little room for anything less that clean black and white lines. Again, the earmark of a popular misconception of science and history, making them the Authority of Facts™. Blah... The world isn't so neat and simple, believe as hard and has as much hope and faith it can be.

 

Believing without evidence is called Faith.

There are many things that are called faith, such as believing you can conclude facts in the way you do.

 

I have gone over all the evidence I can find. And I will certainly examine any new research that becomes available. You are asking me to have Faith in your Historical "Jesus", without evidence. At present, I consider the probability of an Historical Jesus to be around 30%. No one I know of claims 100% certainty on this subject, except Theologians.

So you have a 30% probability of a historical Jesus? That's pretty substantial! Why are so dogmatic then? That's high enough of a probability to be definitely worthy of not ruling it out. I'd be curious to hear your reasoning that allows for that surprisingly high percentage. What are you looking at that makes it that high?

 

The only "Jesus" I have ruled out is the Gospel "Jesus" that performed Miracles, raised the dead, returned from the dead, and ascended to Heaven. The probability of an Historical Founder "Jesus" is open for discussion. The Jesus Project is the latest attempt to sift through the Gospels and try to find some kind of Historical "Jesus" behind the Myths. Albert Schweitzer, though not a Mythicist, had this to say:

 

[A]ll the reports about [Jesus] go back to the one source of tradition, early Christianity itself, and there are no data available in Jewish or Gentile secular history which could be used as controls. Thus the degree of certainty cannot even be raised so high as positive probability.

(Schweitzer, Quest, p.402)

 

Without external controls for verification, we have no Historical facts, only possibilities. Was there an Historical Heracles? Maybe he didn't strangle a serpent in his crib or clean the Augean Stables, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist. Because of extensive External Evidence, I know that Julius Caesar existed. We don't have that for Jesus. If the need for external controls to establish facts is dogmatic, then I'm in good company. Because of thorough testing, Piltdown Man was discovered to be a fraud. This is a good lession for Scientists and Historians. Mythicists argue that no Historical "Jesus" is necessary to explain the origins of Christianity, not that some obscure "Jesus" never existed. I haven't read Richard Carrier's new book yet, but I intend to.

 

Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus

[Deva]

Positivism is a failed philosophy. No human operates on "pure evidence only". Sounds good on paper, offers a nice way to not look at things you don't want to, but is utterly unrealistic to how humans function.

 

YES. This. Now back to topic.

[stryper]

 

YES. This. Now back to topic.

 

There was a topic?

 

 

Oh yeah.... Jesus = Horus = Theseus = Gilgamesh (though he got more tail) = random minor demi-god from Canaan

[mymistake]

I thought the topic was that the men named Jesus mentioned in history are almost nothing like the Biblical stories of Jesus.

[Geezer]

The lack of any tangible evidence that a man named Jesus of Nazareth ever existed in the flesh, and the recognizable similarities in the Jesus story and numerous other dying and resurrecting god/men pagan myths, that preceded the Jesus story by as much as a thousand years, sealed the deal for me.

John the Baptist made it into history so why would history be completely silent about his supposed successor the called man Jesus of Nazareth, who supposedly did greater things that John?

 

Dr. Robert M Price & Earl Doherty are two authors who have written about this issue extensively. Anything they have authored, IMO, is worth reading.

[Ouroboros]

John the Baptist made it into history...

I'm curious. What is the evidence for John the Baptist as a historical person?

[mcdaddy]

I think Josephus, right?