Killer Mike

Im just wondering why so many here insist on the "Jesus Never Existed" idea? You go to any university like Harvard or Yale and you will be taught Jesus did exist but many mythological themes were attached to his life and ministry. Mainstream Bible scholarship does not teach the resurrection is literal history nor that Jesus was God incarnate. It clearly does not support Christians who accept the stories in the Bible as history. If you watch the PBS series "From Jesus to Christ" Helmut Koester from Harvard clearly states the New Testament contains myth and legend. Now Im no Bible scholar (I only took two undergradute courses in New Testament studies at the University of Minnesota) but it seems to me that as atheists we should be consistent across the board when it comes to the subjects we wish to learn about. We atheists stay within the mainstream of biology, geology, physics, astronomy, philosophy, and every other subject. But along comes the subject of the Origins of Christianity and people get all weird and resistive to what is being taught. Now Im not saying we should go to the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago or Jerry Falwells Liberty University, but some even resist what is being taught at places like Harvard, Yale, and the Hebrew University, the most respected universitites in the world. Kind of weird is it not :huh:

Occams_Razor

I learned in school about a certain president and a cherry tree, as well that eggs can be stood on their end only during a certain day of the year, that water swirls down my bathtub drain because of the coriolis effect and many other assumed-to-be-fact falsehoods.

Your post strikes me as containing a rather insidious form of the appeal to authority--insidious because the authority claimed is facially more valid than the authority that is invoked for many other claims. Yet, when you examine the evidence that is available for all to see, it is apparent that there is little to support the claim that Jesus Christ actually existed.

To bastardize a Gertrude Stein saying, a fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy. I don't care who the appeal to authority is made to; I care about the evidence to support the claim. Even if you are correct that Harvard and Yale teach of a historical jesus, the evidence changes not a whit. In any event, in the context of what you are complaining of, it is not the historicity of jesus that is being examined, it is the religions, and the universities are apparently assuming his historicity. I would venture to bet that if that underlying premises were examined by those self same scholars then a different conclusion would be drawn.

Finally, at least as far as I've seen, most people here, including me, do not "insist" that Jesus Christ did not exist as you say; rather we claim that there is little evidence to support that contention.

Epictetus

This thread is probably going to be hauled off to General Religious Discussions but here goes anyway. I think you have stated the case here quite eloquently. When viewed from a purely historical viewpoint, there is virtually no evidence for the existence of this guy. This has all been hashed out here ad infinitum. by people who have quite a depth of knowledge on the subject.

Take even a cursory look at the physical evidence that we possess for his existence - "Jesus" wrote nothing, no one that lived with him and spoke to him wrote anything. The gospels are just as suspect for historicity. No coins were minted, no secular sources mention him, other than Josephus, which is widely accepted as an interpolation. Other secular writers have very little more to contribute and they are writing usually decades to centuries after the alleged life of Jesus.

Could some peasant have lived named Jesus who roughly fits the descriptions that we have from the Christian sources? Sure. But we don't have enough historical evidence to back this up.

In spite of this dearth of evidence, I understand killer Mike's sentiment. Perhaps it is because it seems like there is some logic to making the assumption that Jesus was a real dude. I've read in here that many believe he was a complete fabrication. I find it more difficult to believe this line of reasoning than the former. It seems more probable to me that an obscure rabbi got mixed up with the Roman authorities and was summarily executed and became a martyr than to do the mental gymnastics required to turn him into an invention and icon of the early Christians who were looking for some symbol to justify their theology. I don't know...call it...eh...Occam's Razor.

BioBeing

Ahhh - lets try BC&H with this...

BioBeing
S&S Moderator

Chris Weimer

Even Socrates is better attested to than Jesus. Jesus Christ has no independent verifiers, with much debate over the epistles of II and III John and James, while Socrates has Xenophon, Plato, and Sophocles, with the latter being the most crucial to the historicity of Socrates, as the first two are merely disciples and would be placed in the same category as the authors of II and III John and James.

Chili

It would be good for those institutions to get their act together because in the first lecture of Anthro 101 they teach that the mythology is for the survival and prosperity of the tribe. Then they go on to teach a comparative religious study class wherein all mythologies are said to be transparent if you know what to look for.

Based on the above, which is an absolute truth in my view, they go on to teach that the bible is historic but only insofar as it is believable in their own minds, suggesting that they do not know. I therefore argue that they should remove religious studies from their institutions because they simply haven't got a clue what they are talking about.

gregor

Your question is an interesting one with many levels of consideration. Let me throw in my 2 cents.

1. I perceive that "mainstream" is a loaded term when applied to religion. Unlike other fields of study, there is a strong philosophical presupposition of belief without evidence. I would posit that a number of "mainstream" people elect this topic for their profession (ala Crossan) because they are religious to begin with. In summary, I think both numerosity and commonality of the opinion of historicity is a bit of loaded dice. Thus, an appeal to numbers or an appeal to authority should have less sway than such appeals in other areas of study.

2. I do perceive some merit to the argument that MJ aetheists place too high a burden for proof that Jesus existed 2,000 YA. I understand the counter-argument that such an important figure (god incarnate, walking zombies, etc.) should create a greater stir amongst the general populace.

Toto

Killer Mike: this is a duplicate of something you posted here. The last time you raised the question, I gave you a link to Drew University, showing that University takes the JM hypothesis seriously. Did you read it? Have you read the Jesus Puzzle?

Would you expect the Harvard Divinity School to teach that Jesus is a myth? Have you studied at Yale? Do you know what is currently being taught there?

In fact, atheists take a variety of positions on the existence of a historical Jesus, because the question is not vital to our belief structure - since we start off agreeing that Jesus was not god even if he existed. Many atheists follow the Enlightenment reconstruction of Jesus as a religious reformer who was crucified by the Romans and then continually misinterpreted by Christians. But there are problems with this narrative, if you actually want to understand what went on.

Chili

Harvard cannot teach the myth because that would flush the whole punchbowl of religion that serves a purpose and actually was and still is the backbone of the entire Western civilization = faith seeking understanding through the transcendence of human understanding on to a higher plain of perception wherein the historic myth becomes the living truth. That Harvard doesn't have a clue is obvious by their name "School of Divinity" which must be in direct conflict with what they teach there or they would know that wisdom is not teachable.

I give atheists credit for walking away from the garbage they teach there (or anywhere) even if that makes them freeloaders in Christendom -- which is better then belonging to those who are ready, eager and willing to tear down the myth despite their good intentions. You should take that as a compliment and a happy new year to you!

Schneibster

You got a good point.

Let's get real. Jesus was almost certainly a real person, who almost certainly engaged in religious teaching. He probably led a minor rebellion against the polytheistic Romans, or at least preached one, and was crucified for it. They did that to a lot of people for starting fusses about religion in various places.

He may or may not have said some pretty wise things; for sure, after he was dead, some of his friends got together to make a serious problem for the Romans by making a famous martyr of him. They pumped the story up for all it was worth. Some of them had an agenda that had to do with starting a new idea that went beyond Judaism, which the Romans already didn't really like much. They liked this new idea even less. They wound up making a habit of crucifying Christians.

This turned into a pretty big deal; I'm not going to recap European history. But you get the idea. And here we are.