• In total there are 44 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 44 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

Granted, I'm not as well-read on this subject as Robert and some others, but it seems to me that the relative dearth of tangible biographical data is precisely what allowed Jesus to become a God myth figure in the first place. The lack of biographical details would have invited speculation and fabrication, all the stuff that goes into myth-making. If we had known too much about the man, it would have made the jump to God myth less likely. For example, if it was known that Jesus had a wife and children, as Gautama Buddha did, the early mythicists would have been less likely to deify the man and weave mystical cosmic significance from his life.

And, yet, it's difficult, to imagine how the people at this time could have become so infatuated with the Jesus myth had he not been a real person. If the early Christian mythicists had known the Jesus story to be a complete fabrication, it's hard to see how it could have attracted such a fanatical following. It was this devotion to the presumed actual man that allowed the Jesus myth to thrive as a meme.

The fact that Jesus was crucified suggests the man had already attracted a group of followers and was considered a threat to Roman authority. But Jesus himself probably never claimed to be the son of God and there would have been scarce details of his life. His followers were illiterate, leaving behind no textual evidence. They had no political voice at the time and, as we know, history is written by the victors. The lack of historical and biographical data for Jesus combined with the fanaticism of a relatively small group of followers and political unrest of the time would have created just the right conditions for creation of the Messianic myth that would later became a major religion.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

No, Robert. The evidence for the existence of Socrates is not overwhelming.

Accepting claims of the existence in one source, while exuberantly dismissing them in others is not sound, historical study. The criteria used to conclude with relative certainty the existence of a historical figure should not change. And that is what you are doing here.

Both are multiply attested in several independent sources. Both did not write anything with their own hands.

To treat this fairly, you MUST include the canonical gospels as attestation of the existence of the historical figure "Jesus." Biblical scholars, without a theological ax to grind do, like Professor Bart Ehrman, do.


If mythicists would play by the same evidentiary rules in relation to Socrates, they would be trumpeting how tardy the copies are of the texts that mention him are. What evidence is there that they were written at the time Socrates was alive. Is it the word of the authors? Why is that evidence?

You continue to belabor the point " his students wrote books about him, so they are telling the truth about his existence " (paraphrased).

Mythicists can make the claim that the accounts of Jesus were made up to create a myth about the existence of a divine character to spread Christianity, and with it, a particular spiritual/religious message.
A Mythicist who was bent on denying the existence of Socrates could state the follow:

Athens, at the time, was in political turmoil, undergoing a change from authoritarian rule to a democratic one (true statement, as you know)

His students, for fear of not wanting to put themselves at risk (Socrates was against democracy, as you know), wrote about a man who was highly controversial in his time (which Socrates was) because of his political, social, and theological views

To disseminate their particular school of thought, they made up a fictitious character named "Socrates", whom they wrote about in a very artistic/creative style( which BTW, in itself, would cast doubt as to the claim that it was a pure biographical account.


Writings from his students are not direct evidence of his existence.

Socrates, like Christ, was a highly controversial figure with a risky message to share that would have put both in harms way. One message was spiritual in nature. One was more political/social in nature. You are claiming that because one was spiritual, there was more motive to have made it up than the other. But in the context of both these men's time, both messages were probably of equal importance and risky to spread. So two different myths were created.

If mythicists were truly fair handed with this, they would be saying that the messages in the dialogues and plays of Socrates were clearly for the purpose of illustrating a philosophical and perhaps a political message rather than to provide true historical information.

Question:
Is scholarly research peer reviewed? Has Earl Doherty's research been peer reviewed (realizing the importance of peer review)?

This is an interesting discussion, I must say. :)
Last edited by ant on Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:17 pm, edited 4 times in total.
lady of shallot

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:22 pm
13
Location: Maine
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

geo wrote:
The fact that Jesus was crucified .

But George that is just it. His crucifixion is not a fact. There is no historical record of it. Crucifixion was just a very common way of execution at that time.

The problem with this discussion and reaching any really meaningful dialogue between the participants, is because of the huge weight of public acceptance of the Jesus Myth. Any brief mention of anything to do with these Biblical stories is presented to the public as if it is unquestioning fact. I don't mean just that such and such was said for instance in Mark. That of course is true (at least in whatever Bible is being quoted from) I mean the story itself. Like the wine into water or fishes and loaves or virgin birth or Gabriel etc. etc.

I look forward to the day when these stories are presented with a disclaimer instead of a tacit agreement with the veracity of them.
lady of shallot

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:22 pm
13
Location: Maine
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

geo wrote:
The fact that Jesus was crucified .

But George that is just it. His crucifixion is not a fact. There is no historical record of it. Crucifixion was just a very common way of execution at that time.

The problem with this discussion and reaching any really meaningful dialogue between the participants, is because of the huge weight of public acceptance of the Jesus Myth. Any brief mention of anything to do with these Biblical stories is presented to the public as if it is unquestioning fact. I don't mean just that such and such was said for instance in Mark. That of course is true (at least in whatever Bible is being quoted from) I mean the story itself. Like the wine into water or fishes and loaves or virgin birth or Gabriel etc. etc.

I look forward to the day when these stories are presented with a disclaimer instead of a tacit agreement with the veracity of them.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

There is no historical record of it. Crucifixion was just a very common way of execution.
What historical evidence is there of the death of Socrates?
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

The lack of biographical details would have invited speculation and fabrication
The writings related to the life of Socrates are not biographical.
Why the different standards to weigh the evidence?
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

lady of shallot wrote:
geo wrote:
The fact that Jesus was crucified .

But George that is just it. His crucifixion is not a fact.
I probably shouldn't have phrased it like that. I don't see the crucifixion as hard-boiled fact, however, there's something of a cavalier attitude towards the mainstream scholarly position which does assume that Jesus was a historical figure. Likewise, his crucifixion is widely regarded as a historical event. It even says so in Wikipedia. :lol:

Mainstream acceptance isn't in itself positive evidence of a historical Jesus, but to me it's an important consideration to say the least. I know for a fact that Robert Wright in The Evolution of God assumes Jesus to be a historical figure as does historian/author Barbara Tuchman. I'd go so far as to say that the vast majority of mainstream and scholarly works of history published in the past 200 years do assume a historical Jesus (although this is a guess). Is that something we now toss aside with confidence? If so, what accounts for this bold new position?

It's become somewhat fashionable these days to argue that Jesus never existed because it's an audacious claim and goes well with rejection of Christianity as a religion. Granted, there are some interesting arguments in favor of mythicism, but I don't entirely trust the attitude behind it. It seems almost trendy. How can anyone, especially non-scholars, take such a confident stance that Jesus never existed when this is the polar opposite of the established scholarly position for hundreds of years.
-Geo
Question everything
lady of shallot

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:22 pm
13
Location: Maine
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

geo wrote:
lady of shallot wrote:
geo wrote:
The fact that Jesus was crucified .

But George that is just it. His crucifixion is not a fact.
I probably shouldn't have phrased it like that. I don't see the crucifixion as hard-boiled fact, however, there's something of a cavalier attitude towards the mainstream scholarly position which does assume that Jesus was a historical figure. Likewise, his crucifixion is widely regarded as a historical event. It even says so in Wikipedia. :lol:

Mainstream acceptance isn't in itself positive evidence of a historical Jesus, but to me it's an important consideration to say the least. I know for a fact that Robert Wright in The Evolution of God assumes Jesus to be a historical figure as does historian/author Barbara Tuchman. I'd go so far as to say that the vast majority of mainstream and scholarly works of history published in the past 200 years do assume a historical Jesus (although this is a guess). Is that something we now toss aside with confidence? If so, what accounts for this bold new position?

It's become somewhat fashionable these days to argue that Jesus never existed because it's an audacious claim and goes well with rejection of Christianity as a religion. Granted, there are some interesting arguments in favor of mythicism, but I don't entirely trust the attitude behind it. It seems almost trendy. How can anyone, especially non-scholars, take such a confident stance that Jesus never existed when this is the polar opposite of the established scholarly position for hundreds of years.

I'm not saying it because it is an audacious claim, but because that is what my conviction is. As far as being confident in my viewpoint, well all I can say is that since I have no emotional or "spiritual" or psychological need to think of my life influenced or guided by any divinity, I do feel confident in, at this time, because of the lack of any historical evidence, believing that an actual man, Jesus existed.

All the references you make are exactly what I mean. Most people just accept it as fact because they do not care enough to think about it or to question it. Oh, they might question the divinity of Christ or the virgin birth or the resurrection etc, but they don't stop to think about the actual historicity of Christ as a human being.

George people have actually questioned this over time. Albert Schweitzer the theologian, humanist, physician came to the conclusion that although there was no historical Jesus we should still believe in him!

As far as the bulk of people in western civilization. Well how far do you think questioning the historicity of Jesus would have gone during the Spanish inquisition? The Puritan settlement of New England? The religious wars in Europe, etc. etc.

Just as so many people believe in the historicity of Jesus (but only in the western world, others, i.e. eastern peoples do not) Don't forget there are a sizable number of people who truly believe that Joseph Smith received the book of Mormon through divine inspiration. People believe what they are taught to believe, they believe what they are threatened against not believing (shunning, excommunication)

As far as historians like Barbara Tuchman and Will Durant. They did not specifically research the historicity of Jesus and I am assuming they were also both Christians. I know Will Durant was in a seminary although was not ordained. Can't remember if he remained a Christian or not.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

Most people just accept it as fact because they do not care enough to think about it or to question it.
Just one comment about the above:

Most people do not question what they believe, true.
But most people will not look for evidence that refutes their belief(s)
lady of shallot

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:22 pm
13
Location: Maine
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 174 times

Re: Did the man "Jesus" exist?

Unread post

ant wrote:
Most people just accept it as fact because they do not care enough to think about it or to question it.
Just one comment about the above:

Most people do not question what they believe, true.
But most people will not look for evidence that refutes their belief(s)

Of course that is true.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”