Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Flaming Moe · 01-17-2008, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Undisputed by whom? Desperate christians who grasp at any straw imaginable to provide a lifeline for their godboy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Undisputed by most mainstream scholars, even those who are not Christians.

"Undisputed by most" only means disputed. And it is imperative for Christians to think Christ existed as a god, a man or both, hence the word Christian.

Like a juror, I have no consideration for the "most Christian scholars", only the "most evidence". And the "most evidence" is against the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Yes, that was the point of my thread: if most evidence is against a historical Jesus through lack of objective documentation (And I respect 'Solitary Man's' position that if you believe the gospels are accurate then, for him, they are as reliable as any evidence) then it seems reasonable to hold the position that he never existed. Again, I will concede that there may have been an amalgamation of political figures combined but if we say the gospels accurately depict life as it was then you are also asking me to believe that people rise from the dead, walk on water and the creator of the universe has nothing more to do than vindictively play with people like a baby with its toys.

Flaming Moe · 01-17-2008, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

There's no strong evidence Jesus existed as a historical person, but I tend to think he did anyway, because of the so-called "criterion of embarassment."

In case you're not familiar with it, the argument goes like this. If the Gospels were fabricated, then (whether they're mythic or fictional) they would likely be composed by people who want you to convert or adhere to Christianity. Well, the problem with that is that the Gospels contain a number of details that cast doubt on Christian beliefs:

- Obvious doubts about Jesus's paternal lineage.
- People from his home town thinking he was full of it.
- He seems to second-guess himself on the cross: "Father, why have you forsaken me?"
- He famously prophesizes his return within the lifetimes of some listening to him; a prophecy that has presumably failed.

It's a little indirect, but if you try to imagine Christian evangelists inventing those parts, it strikes you as weird.

In addition to that one, I also think Jesus's character comes across as a very life-like cult leader... I also think that the existence of Christianity itself, and the purported history in the Gospels, while they may be weak evidence, are still evidence. If we had nothing to go on but the Gospels, my feeling is that the simplest theory to account for them is that there really was some guy named Jesus at the root of them.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Personally I belive that storytelling has always been able to create a tapestry of intrigue, politics, human conflict and inner doubt since we have been telling them. I accept the gospel story is one that speaks on many levels but it's no more complex or worthy of our time (IMO) than the ancient Sumerian texts, Greek legends (which also contain the human aspects you mention including regret, place names and snapshots of life at that time.) but, it doesn't make them real occurances.

jonasaberg · 01-17-2008, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

...I also think that the existence of Christianity itself, and the purported history in the Gospels, while they may be weak evidence, are still evidence. If we had nothing to go on but the Gospels, my feeling is that the simplest theory to account for them is that there really was some guy named Jesus at the root of them...

I don't agree.
I see christianity as proof of an *originator*. However, an originator does not automatically mean Jesus.

As I understand it, at that point in time there were hundreds of prophets and people who made various claims about being messiah. Disproving that a man is a god is pretty easy. However, what if this "prophet" claimed he was only a messenger or something. He wasn't god himself but someone who has knowledge of god, or rather the son of God. Various stories were bunched together with elements of other religious beliefs and eventually we get the NT Jesus story.

Flaming Moe · 01-17-2008, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonasaberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

...I also think that the existence of Christianity itself, and the purported history in the Gospels, while they may be weak evidence, are still evidence. If we had nothing to go on but the Gospels, my feeling is that the simplest theory to account for them is that there really was some guy named Jesus at the root of them...

I don't agree.
I see christianity as proof of an *originator*. However, an originator does not automatically mean Jesus.

As I understand it, at that point in time there were hundreds of prophets and people who made various claims about being messiah. Disproving that a man is a god is pretty easy. However, what if this "prophet" claimed he was only a messenger or something. He wasn't god himself but someone who has knowledge of god, or rather the son of God. Various stories were bunched together with elements of other religious beliefs and eventually we get the NT Jesus story.

This is why I'm interested in the lack of recorded evidence for one person who supposedly was so famous at the time...

Matthew
23And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

24And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

25And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan

Sounds like we should have some records of this popstar outside Christian texts...hell, a LOT of records surely.

Rick Sumner · 01-17-2008, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus. Paul never met Jesus and one has difficulty finding anything in his writings that suggests that he got any first hand witness of Jesus from others.

This is two different statements being juxtaposed creating the illusion that the second establishes the first. Paul never met Jesus, true enough. He is contemporary. One might be able to read Paul as having no first hand information from others (I'm not arguing that point one way or the other here), but the facts remain that 1) He is contemporary, and 2) He is evidence.

How good that evidence is is another question, but to suggest that contemporary evidence doesn't exist is false.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spin · 01-17-2008, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus. Paul never met Jesus and one has difficulty finding anything in his writings that suggests that he got any first hand witness of Jesus from others.

This is two different statements being juxtaposed creating the illusion that the second establishes the first.

The second sentence heads off at the pass the limp attempts to dragoon Paul in as a witness, when he wasn't. Pure and simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Paul never met Jesus, true enough. He is contemporary.

You are not dealing with my statements. Paul may have been contemporary to the reputed era of Jesus, but my claim is that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

One might be able to read Paul as having no first hand information from others (I'm not arguing that point one way or the other here), but the facts remain that 1) He is contemporary, and 2) He is evidence.

Paul states that his gospel came by revelation and specifically adds that it was not taught to him by humans (Gal 1:11f). There is nothing here to be construed as contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

How good that evidence is is another question, but to suggest that contemporary evidence doesn't exist is false.

What evidence?

spin

Ben C Smith · 01-17-2008, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The list of scholars cited reject both the major
reference in Josephus (the TF) and the minor
James reference as "later interpolations".

To these authors, Josephus does not mention
Jesus Christ at all.

Harnack? Lee Strobel???

Ben.

PS: I note that you were at least fair; if Jay Raskin deserves the title of scholar, then so does Lee Strobel. Makes one wonder what it takes to be a scholar, though. The ability to read and write?

Vivisector · 01-17-2008, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaming Moe

This is why I'm interested in the lack of recorded evidence for one person who supposedly was so famous at the time...

The implied characterization of the Gospels' accuracy might be a bit too charitable. We know "Matthew" embellished greatly (e.g., statements like the ones you quoted, accounts of earthquakes). On the other hand, Mark seems to go out of his way to explain why, in spite of his great deeds, Jesus *wasn't* famous (he worked the small-town circuit, he told the beneficiaries to keep it secret, etc.). I think Mark's account of how Jesus could do no great deed in his home town is extraordinarily telling; it could explain, for example, why the people in Jesus's hometown had no memory of Jesus as a miracle worker.

Mark's explanations and Matthew's embellishments suggest, to me anyway, a Jesus who was perhaps embarrassingly obscure.

Cheers,

V.

Flaming Moe · 01-17-2008, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaming Moe

This is why I'm interested in the lack of recorded evidence for one person who supposedly was so famous at the time...

The implied characterization of the Gospels' accuracy might be a bit too charitable. We know "Matthew" embellished greatly (e.g., statements like the ones you quoted, accounts of earthquakes). On the other hand, Mark seems to go out of his way to explain why, in spite of his great deeds, Jesus *wasn't* famous (he worked the small-town circuit, he told the beneficiaries to keep it secret, etc.). I think Mark's account of how Jesus could do no great deed in his home town is extraordinarily telling; it could explain, for example, why the people in Jesus's hometown had no memory of Jesus as a miracle worker.

Mark's explanations and Matthew's embellishments suggest, to me anyway, a Jesus who was perhaps embarrassingly obscure.

Cheers,

V.

Thats an interesting point, thanks.
It does create an fascinating conflict of accuracy between Matthew and Mark. I'm of the impression that Matthew came first but understand completely that there are many arguments against that view as well. If I was right then could the anonymity be something that was added to explain the lack of evidence or knowledge of Jesus outside the 90 mile geographical radius of Matthews account of Jesus and his ministry?

wordy · 01-17-2008, 07:07 AM

Yes to us it is interesting to spekulate or to try to find evidence for and against a HJ.

But to the believing Christians they don't care much about the historical Jesus.

to them the living Christ Jesus in their hearts are the active God or Lord for them now.

If the Historical Jesus had a word or message that went or goes against their current interpretation of their living God then the god in their thoughts would win over the HJ.

They only use the HJ for rhetorical apologethic purposes. So when we talk about HJ it is for our own curiosity. We have no use of HJ to deconvert Christians. They care for their spiritual living god that they feel in their heart. The HJ is in their heads and that is less important in their lives.

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

01-17-2008, 07:07 AM	#30
wordy Contributor Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sweden, Europe Posts: 12,091	Yes to us it is interesting to spekulate or to try to find evidence for and against a HJ. But to the believing Christians they don't care much about the historical Jesus. to them the living Christ Jesus in their hearts are the active God or Lord for them now. If the Historical Jesus had a word or message that went or goes against their current interpretation of their living God then the god in their thoughts would win over the HJ. They only use the HJ for rhetorical apologethic purposes. So when we talk about HJ it is for our own curiosity. We have no use of HJ to deconvert Christians. They care for their spiritual living god that they feel in their heart. The HJ is in their heads and that is less important in their lives.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.