Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 02-15-2010, 09:31 AM

Hi All,

Here is a list compiled from the thread "Three Best Arguments for an Historical Jesus." It quotes or paraphrases all the submitted best arguments.
It is followed by a short summary of the arguments.

Quote:

Philosopher Jay
1. The resurrection seems an add-on to the story, so the real ending is the death of Jesus, which seems a real downbeat and realistic ending, unusual for a fiction story. Although, an unusual ending, it might have been designed that way to be more critical of the Jewish leadership.
2. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary and the Pistis Sophia suggests a more historical model without supernatural powers. We do have the usual problems of being unsure about the origination and transmission of these texts.
3. The synoptic gospels strongly suggests the town of Capernaum for Jesus' home. Josephus apparently refers to this town as Kapharnakos in his Vita (72), so it definitely existed. There is, of course, nothing to stop a fiction writer from using a real town in a fiction.

Young Alexander:
1. Assuming that the (7) Pauline epistles do hail from the mid 1st C it would appear that there were Christians before that time. What it was & why they believed is a great deal less clear. Their existence seems to be the best argument for HJ, altho not a good one.

2. Paul clearly believed something with regard to Christ Jesus and it may have been a HJ, altho that is also unclear.

3. That Mark had some sort of motivation for writing his fictional account about Jesus may indicate an historical source, altho I doubt that he really knew.

SpamandHam
The best argument for a historical Jesus outside the TF is that it is not impossible that there was a historical Jesus, nor particularly improbable that a personality cult would be rooted in a real historical personality.

MaryHelena
1. Of course Jesus was historical.
2. Everyone believes Jesus was historical.
3. The NT scholars say Jesus was historical.

Toto:
1. The best argument for a historical Jesus is that someone founded/inspired Christianity, and we will define that person to be the historical Jesus, however he differed from the Jesus of the gospels. Therefore he existed.

MaryHelena
1. The best argument a historicist can make is that there is a historical core to the gospel story - ie that there is a historical individual that provided the impetus, inspired the christian movement.

Ynquirer
1. At the end of the day, the best argument to support the historical Jesus is weakness of the mythicist way of discussing the evidence. For instance, if the historical Jesus was never questioned before the Enlightenment, why did the Christians forge Tacitus’ Annals 15:44?

Clivedurdle
1. Ellegard's argument that the teacher of righteousness is the root?

Gurugeorge
1.The whole thing has to be looked at painstakingly from scratch, in a context in which "historical Jesus" is only one among a number of apriori equally plausible options.

Roger Pearse
1.Education, education and education.

2. The idea that Jesus never existed is only credible in the absence of this. Fortunately for those espousing it, we no longer live in an age when everyone reads Vergil at school.

Civil1z@tion
1. The consistent agreement of early Christians Jesus as a founder (in this case it doesn't matter whether people believed Jesus was a real person or not, the tight focus on a charismatic founder implies that there probably was one).

2. The commoness of charismatic founders in religion (from Buddha and Confuscius to Mohammed and Abraham, it should not be considered implausible that a charismatic figure would found a major religion given how often it has happened).

3. The large number of apocalyptic/reformist "prophets" in 1st century Judea (there is no reason that one of them couldn't have been Jesus).

ApostateAbe
1. Paul's writings of meeting James, the brother of Jesus, and Cephas, also known as the Apostle Peter, in the letter to the Galatians.
2. The apocalyptic prophecies in the synoptic gospels, expected of a human cult leader but not expected of a myth.
3. The historical pattern of religions, seemingly matching Christianity, being started by living human leaders who are then glorified in religious myth.
4. The complete lack of debate in antiquity, either inside the religion or from the outside, about the seeming human existence of Jesus.
5. The historical background details surrounding Jesus that the gospels apparently got correct (especially the existence of the otherwise-unknown town of Nazareth).
6. No references to Jesus or anyone much like him are found prior to the first century.

Dog-on
1. Surviving texts which purport the existance
2. Surviving texts which purport the existance
3. Surviving texts which purport the existence

show_no_mercy
1. The name "Jesus" seems to go back to the earliest traditions
2. The [public] crucifixion seems to go back to the earliest traditions

aa5874
Once it is proposed that Jesus was actually only human who virtually did not do or say anything as found in the NT, Church and Apocryphal writings then the best argument for HJ is that there was a massive evil conspiracy against Jesus by his own disciples, family, friends, followers and acquaintances.

Another argument for HJ is that his disciples destroyed all the historical records of Jesus in order to propagate their lies and then fabricated their own history of Jesus as a God and Creator and every body forgot that Jesus was human, possibly because many people were illiterate and perhaps blind, including Jesus himself.

Even in gLuke, there is a story where a man was made dumb so that he could only write what he heard and saw. Now, if many people were illiterate and blind then it must be obvious that they would not really know what was written.

Tristan Scott
I believe the best evidence would probably be the parables and sayings attributed to him.

Holly3278
the Jewish historian, Josephus, mentions His existence. His existence is also mentioned by Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius and possibly some others as well. This is not to mention that the early Church fathers attest to His existence as well.

Here is my summary of the arguments:

Quote:

Many educated people and New Testament scholars believe in the historical Jesus. It is not unusual for religions to be formed by charismatic cult leaders. Mark or whoever wrote the earliest gospels probably was inspired by somebody. From history we know that there were many messianic figures like this in First century Judea. The earliest layers of the Jesus stories seem to point to such a figure with sayings and parables attributed to him. The name “Jesus” and the fact that he was crucified seem to go back to this earliest layer, and are found no where outside this layer.

There was no or little debate about the historicity of Jesus in ancient times.

The textual evidence includes unusual apocalyptic prophesies in the gospels and possibly some factual details such as the existence of Nazareth and/or Capernaum. It also includes Paul meeting figures from the gospels according to his “Galatians” and apparently knowing of Jesus’ crucifixion. Furthermore, Josephus and other ancient writers talk about Jesus as an historical person, as do the church fathers. It is probable that some of his followers mythologized a great deal of his life.

The teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls might also be evidence for an historical Jesus.

Mythicists do not make a coherent case against these things.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874 · 02-15-2010, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Here is my summary of the arguments:

Quote:

Many educated people and New Testament scholars believe in the historical Jesus. It is not unusual for religions to be formed by charismatic cult leaders. Mark or whoever wrote the earliest gospels probably was inspired by somebody. From history we know that there were many messianic figures like this in First century Judea. The earliest layers of the Jesus stories seem to point to such a figure with sayings and parables attributed to him. The name “Jesus” and the fact that he was crucified seem to go back to this earliest layer, and are found no where outside this layer.

There was no or little debate about the historicity of Jesus in ancient times.

The textual evidence includes unusual apocalyptic prophesies in the gospels and possibly some factual details such as the existence of Nazareth and/or Capernaum. It also includes Paul meeting figures from the gospels according to his “Galatians” and apparently knowing of Jesus’ crucifixion. Furthermore, Josephus and other ancient writers talk about Jesus as an historical person, as do the church fathers. It is probable that some of his followers mythologized a great deal of his life.

The teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls might also be evidence for an historical Jesus.

Mythicists do not make a coherent case against these things.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

But, if this is the best argument for an historical Jesus then the case for the HJ is rather pathetic.

Not one single supposed contemporary of Jesus in the Canon claimed they personally saw Jesus and interacted with him.

And, it was NOT even necessary for Jesus to have lived when virtually most of what he was reported to have said and supposed to have done can be found in or was lifted out of the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture.

storytime · 02-15-2010, 11:48 AM

As the story goes, Paul is attempting to validate his gospel.While under house arrest, awaiting audience with Caesar, he sends for the chief Jews to come and listen to his appeal. Whereof these Jews said to Paul: "We neither received letters out of Judea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came showed or spoke any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest, for as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against."

Nothing is mentioned about Jesus by these "chief" Jews who were evidently important Jewish figures at that time, and they had heard nothing about certain Jews trying to kill Paul or having made a vow to kill him. Why would they as chief Jews been unaware of the events supposedly to have happened at Jerusalem concerning Jesus and the resurrection of the dead, by which Paul said was the reason for his being in chains? "For this cause, therefore, have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain".
(Acts 28:12-22)

After Paul had declared his gospel to them, all day, some Jews believed and some did not. So these Jews departed in argument amongst themselves while Paul effectively cursed them via scripture from Isaiah; the Jews refused to see with their eyes and hear with their ears, so God, according to Paul, sent salvation to the Gentiles and they would hear and accept it. The kingdom of God is therewith snatched from the Jews and given to the lawless and uncircumcised Gentiles. And that tall tale was supposed to do what, convince the Jews that their land was no longer theirs?

Did Paul see his story as a better way to obtain land rights compared to war with Rome? Did he really expect chief Jews to believe that God accepted lawless and uncircumcised Gentiles as his people?

The Jesus character could not have survived six months in Judea doing his magic miracles, raising the dead, healing the sick, curing the blind. Let's face it, if Herod knew about Jesus and desired to meet with him for some miracle he personally wanted performed, then you can bet that Herod would have hurridly told Caesar and Caesar would have seated Jesus in his court immediately. But we know that didn't happen, don't we. And that should be enough evidence against a real Jesus and his magic.

We are left with myth. Nothing more.

MarkA · 02-15-2010, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

As the story goes, Paul is attempting to validate his gospel.While under house arrest, awaiting audience with Caesar, he sends for the chief Jews to come and listen to his appeal. Whereof these Jews said to Paul: "We neither received letters out of Judea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came showed or spoke any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest, for as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against."

Nothing is mentioned about Jesus by these "chief" Jews who were evidently important Jewish figures at that time, and they had heard nothing about certain Jews trying to kill Paul or having made a vow to kill him. Why would they as chief Jews been unaware of the events supposedly to have happened at Jerusalem concerning Jesus and the resurrection of the dead, by which Paul said was the reason for his being in chains? "For this cause, therefore, have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain".
(Acts 28:12-22)

After Paul had declared his gospel to them, all day, some Jews believed and some did not. So these Jews departed in argument amongst themselves while Paul effectively cursed them via scripture from Isaiah; the Jews refused to see with their eyes and hear with their ears, so God, according to Paul, sent salvation to the Gentiles and they would hear and accept it. The kingdom of God is therewith snatched from the Jews and given to the lawless and uncircumcised Gentiles. And that tall tale was supposed to do what, convince the Jews that their land was no longer theirs?

Did Paul see his story as a better way to obtain land rights compared to war with Rome? Did he really expect chief Jews to believe that God accepted lawless and uncircumcised Gentiles as his people?

The Jesus character could not have survived six months in Judea doing his magic miracles, raising the dead, healing the sick, curing the blind. Let's face it, if Herod knew about Jesus and desired to meet with him for some miracle he personally wanted performed, then you can bet that Herod would have hurridly told Caesar and Caesar would have seated Jesus in his court immediately. But we know that didn't happen, don't we. And that should be enough evidence against a real Jesus and his magic.

We are left with myth. Nothing more.

Interesting point.

If a historical figure existed with the power to perform miracles (not commonplace magic tricks) then the ruling elite would naturally want to either eliminate that individual as a threat against the state, ie themselves, or coopt it. Any ruler would naturally want to coopt such power first before eliminating it. Yet there is no mention of any such attempt in the Bible to my knowledge.

mountainman · 02-15-2010, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

If a historical figure existed with the power to perform miracles (not commonplace magic tricks) then the ruling elite would naturally want to either eliminate that individual as a threat against the state, ie themselves, or coopt it. Any ruler would naturally want to coopt such power first before eliminating it.

Evidence exists that a number of Roman emperors supported the preservation of the books, of the historical memory and the glorification of the common peoples' memory in respect of the historical figure of Apollonius of Tyana, who is definitely reported to have performed various miracles in the 1st century throughout the Roman empire.

According to fairly recent scholarship related to archaeological finds associated with Apollonius, Roman emperors as late as Diocletian (c.305 CE) sponsored and coopted the preservation of his memory in monumental stone, perhaps centralised around the ancient and highly revered temple to Asclepius in Aegae. For example see here

Quote:

Yet there is no mention of any such attempt in the Bible to my knowledge.

We might ask what other literature was generated by the first editor of the first widespread publication of the Bible, Eusebius of Caesarea, AGAINST Apollonius. And what actions did the first widespread publisher of the bible enact AGAINST the memory of Apollonius and against the Asclepian temple network which preserved the books and memory of this 1st century Greek author, sage, holy man and doer of miracles.

mountainman · 02-15-2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Ynquirer
... the historical Jesus was never questioned before the Enlightenment...

This represents an utterly politically nieve statement.

The evidence that people like Arius of Alexandria and Emperor Julian severely questioned the existence of the historical jesus was censored and burnt by the orthodox christians, such as the murderer and terrorist boss, Bishop Cyril of Alexandria - who was given the name "The Seal of the Fathers" for these acts of censorship.

show_no_mercy · 02-15-2010, 03:01 PM

I would add as the third evidence on my list that Mark seems to be an attack on the historical witnesses - i.e. those who concentrated on the "man" Jesus instead of his soteriology so to say. It doesn't really make sense for Mark to have written that if there was no historical Jesus in the first place.

Then again, because Mark is a polemic against those who concentrated on the life of Jesus, it has no value as history.

storytime · 02-15-2010, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

As the story goes, Paul is attempting to validate his gospel.While under house arrest, awaiting audience with Caesar, he sends for the chief Jews to come and listen to his appeal. Whereof these Jews said to Paul: "We neither received letters out of Judea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came showed or spoke any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest, for as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against."

Nothing is mentioned about Jesus by these "chief" Jews who were evidently important Jewish figures at that time, and they had heard nothing about certain Jews trying to kill Paul or having made a vow to kill him. Why would they as chief Jews been unaware of the events supposedly to have happened at Jerusalem concerning Jesus and the resurrection of the dead, by which Paul said was the reason for his being in chains? "For this cause, therefore, have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain".
(Acts 28:12-22)

After Paul had declared his gospel to them, all day, some Jews believed and some did not. So these Jews departed in argument amongst themselves while Paul effectively cursed them via scripture from Isaiah; the Jews refused to see with their eyes and hear with their ears, so God, according to Paul, sent salvation to the Gentiles and they would hear and accept it. The kingdom of God is therewith snatched from the Jews and given to the lawless and uncircumcised Gentiles. And that tall tale was supposed to do what, convince the Jews that their land was no longer theirs?

Did Paul see his story as a better way to obtain land rights compared to war with Rome? Did he really expect chief Jews to believe that God accepted lawless and uncircumcised Gentiles as his people?

The Jesus character could not have survived six months in Judea doing his magic miracles, raising the dead, healing the sick, curing the blind. Let's face it, if Herod knew about Jesus and desired to meet with him for some miracle he personally wanted performed, then you can bet that Herod would have hurridly told Caesar and Caesar would have seated Jesus in his court immediately. But we know that didn't happen, don't we. And that should be enough evidence against a real Jesus and his magic.

We are left with myth. Nothing more.

Interesting point.

If a historical figure existed with the power to perform miracles (not commonplace magic tricks) then the ruling elite would naturally want to either eliminate that individual as a threat against the state, ie themselves, or coopt it. Any ruler would naturally want to coopt such power first before eliminating it. Yet there is no mention of any such attempt in the Bible to my knowledge.

How fast would it have taken word-of-mouth information about Lazarus being raised from the dead to reach the ears of Caesar? One would think that the Pharisees particularly would have gone to Caesar themselves with such information, and dragging Jesus AND Lazarus along with them. Jesus said he raised Lazarus to show the power of God to the Jews, so with that kind of power there would have been no reason for a crucifiction at all. I can imagine the whole world would have bowed at Jesus' knee, had they, of course, been shown the evidence of the person Lazarus. But, we know this event also did not happen, else stinking Lazarus would be with us today. :lol:

storytime · 02-15-2010, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

I would add as the third evidence on my list that Mark seems to be an attack on the historical witnesses - i.e. those who concentrated on the "man" Jesus instead of his soteriology so to say. It doesn't really make sense for Mark to have written that if there was no historical Jesus in the first place.

Then again, because Mark is a polemic against those who concentrated on the life of Jesus, it has no value as history.

Well, Mark could have simply believed (as Luke) what he had been told. Like Christians today believe what they have been told. But someone had to start the tale, pass it around, so that it would grow into the biggest fishing story ever heard. By the time it reached Eusebius and Constantine, they realized they had a gold mine without digging any further.

mountainman · 02-15-2010, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

How fast would it have taken word-of-mouth information about Lazarus being raised from the dead to reach the ears of Caesar?

Good point. One resurrector would be worth many legions in a battle - as fast as the enemy killed a legion the resurrector could get them on their feet again and send them back to the front line. With such a person coopted for the imperial military machine Caesar could have expected no losses.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-15-2010, 11:48 AM	#3
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	As the story goes, Paul is attempting to validate his gospel.While under house arrest, awaiting audience with Caesar, he sends for the chief Jews to come and listen to his appeal. Whereof these Jews said to Paul: "We neither received letters out of Judea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came showed or spoke any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest, for as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against." Nothing is mentioned about Jesus by these "chief" Jews who were evidently important Jewish figures at that time, and they had heard nothing about certain Jews trying to kill Paul or having made a vow to kill him. Why would they as chief Jews been unaware of the events supposedly to have happened at Jerusalem concerning Jesus and the resurrection of the dead, by which Paul said was the reason for his being in chains? "For this cause, therefore, have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain". (Acts 28:12-22) After Paul had declared his gospel to them, all day, some Jews believed and some did not. So these Jews departed in argument amongst themselves while Paul effectively cursed them via scripture from Isaiah; the Jews refused to see with their eyes and hear with their ears, so God, according to Paul, sent salvation to the Gentiles and they would hear and accept it. The kingdom of God is therewith snatched from the Jews and given to the lawless and uncircumcised Gentiles. And that tall tale was supposed to do what, convince the Jews that their land was no longer theirs? Did Paul see his story as a better way to obtain land rights compared to war with Rome? Did he really expect chief Jews to believe that God accepted lawless and uncircumcised Gentiles as his people? The Jesus character could not have survived six months in Judea doing his magic miracles, raising the dead, healing the sick, curing the blind. Let's face it, if Herod knew about Jesus and desired to meet with him for some miracle he personally wanted performed, then you can bet that Herod would have hurridly told Caesar and Caesar would have seated Jesus in his court immediately. But we know that didn't happen, don't we. And that should be enough evidence against a real Jesus and his magic. We are left with myth. Nothing more.

02-15-2010, 03:01 PM	#7
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	I would add as the third evidence on my list that Mark seems to be an attack on the historical witnesses - i.e. those who concentrated on the "man" Jesus instead of his soteriology so to say. It doesn't really make sense for Mark to have written that if there was no historical Jesus in the first place. Then again, because Mark is a polemic against those who concentrated on the life of Jesus, it has no value as history.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.