Due to my complete and utter incapacity for critical thinking I now appeal to those far more intelligent than myself for assistance...

If you are of the belief that it is most likely that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist, then please list your criteria for determining which historical figures are actual and which are fictitious.

I'm not expecting anyone to be 100% certain in their belief, but for those who believe it to be less than 50% probable that Jesus existed - How do you determine which people actually lived in history?

Peace,

Polycarp

Divine Inspiration.

Toto

Name one other alleged historical figure where it would make a difference whether they were real or myth.

If you showed that the Buddha did not actually exist, it would not make a difference to Buddhists - they do not base their beliefs on a view of what happened in history.

If you showed that King Arthur did not exist, it would not make any difference to the English.

Many Jews seem able to swallow the idea that Moses might not have existed, but still remain Jewish.

If it turned out that Daniel Boone (for instance) was actually a mythic figure, or one whose reality was so different from the stories about him that he might as well be myth - what difference would that make?

Get my point?

I prefer not to base my current existence on the truth of some historical event that I cannot verify.

DougI

Senator Frank Murkowski. There exists photographs of him and documents which he has written. He is recorded in secular documents. He is from my hometown, I've seen his house. He currently is a senator in Congress and can be visited in Washington D.C. You can get his address by visiting the Congressional website which also has his picture on file. He also files for re-election every six years and campaigns around the state.

Jesus, on the other hand, is said to have come from a town that didn't exist until 300 years after his death. Turning water into wine without the addition of other ingredients is quite impossible so it is quite improbable that this person existed, among other things.

[This message has been edited by DougI (edited April 18, 2001).]

1. If 99% of historians believe he existed, then he probably did not because history is unknowable and such a consensus could only be the result of a conspiracy and/or biased scholarship.

2. He cannot be the founder of a religion. Such claims are clearly wrong because the religious cannot be counted on to record history. Why, if we believed Jesus existed we would have to believe that Mohammed existed.

3. The person cannot be reputed to have performed miracles. We know miracles do not happen. Clearly, therefore, anyone who records miracles is obviously inventing everything he wrote. Why, if we believed in everyone who was claimed to have performed miracles, we would have to believe that Paul existed.

4. The annoyance factor. The more annoying it is for me to doubt a persons' existence the more likely it is that that person did not exist.

5. The majority of our sources for that person cannot come from those who admired him. Such records are clearly biased and prone to inventing things. Nevermind WHY they became biased towards that alleged person in the first place.

6. The "scholarship" which argues that the supposed historical figure never existed must be ignored by all mainstream scholars. Rather than demonstrating the problematic nature of such scholarship, it affirms the bias and agenda inherent in the mainstream. But this argument does not apply to those pesky Young Earth Creationists out there.

7. If any of the claims about the alleged person are "extraordinary," then I require "extraordinary" proof not only for the "extraordinary" event, but also the very ordinary possibility of that person's existence.

Of course, another avenue to take is that taken by most hardcore Jesus-Mythers. It is called presuppositional skepticism. One is asked to suspend belief in the existence of Jesus and presume his nonexistence. Then use all of your imaginative powers to come up with alternative hypothesis that explains away any and all evidence. Then, presume them to be true and go about gathering "supporting" evidence.

Toto, thank you for reminding me!

8. If the implications of the person's mere existence would affect my life, then that person must not have existed. At the very least I have good reason to doubt his existence.

Nazareth didn't exist until 300 years after Jesus' life? How do you know that?

But thank you for providing an illustration for point number nine!

9. Any mistake made regarding the man's life demonstrates that the very existence of the man is just a mistake.

Oooo, Layman. Humor. Impressed I am.

Let's see...if the person in question was rumored to perform feats that defy natural explanation, feats that were seen by "multitudes," yet there is for some reason no record of it outside of the writings of believers who didn't even claim to witness a whit of it, it's reasonable to assume that these stories are fanciful tales. If anyone has a vested interest in convincing me that this person really existed (by "vested interest," I'm referring to his wallet), I smell a rat. If the details of that person's supposed life are contradictory AND coincidentally happen to parallel standard myth stories, I lean toward the idea that the whole character is a figment of imagination.

When it comes down to it, I don't know if there ever was a man named Jesus of Nazareth, called Xst by the ignorant/uneducated/gullible rabble, upon whom the myth evolved (but I lean toward No). Until someone can offer me something more substantial than wishful thinking...well...frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

I don't know whether there was a real Robin Hood, but it's clear that the stories accredited to him are only fanciful tales. Why Christians can see this so clearly while they're blind to the direct analogy to their religion is beyond my capacity to understand.

diana

A mistake in the bible eh? Are there any others, perchance?

Think about it for a minute HJ.

If Nazareth did not exist until 300 years after Jesus' life, how did the gospel authors, writing only between 30-60 years after his life, know to claim that Jesus was from a place that would not exist for another 240 years?

It wasn't a mistake. But that is irrelevant.

We are attempting to explore the minds of the Jesus-mythers.