RAFH

I am not making the extraordinary claim. You claim the existence of a special man for which there is no evidence, you claim the consensus among historians, 100 years ago. Lets see it. As for the biblical scholars, toss that in too, though its more than likely biased.

On the other hand, I am simply doubting. What am I to do, produce an absence of evidence. OK, poof, there's all my lack of evidence. Now you refute it.

Gooch's dad

I'm not claiming the existence of a "special man", just a man who had some legends written about him.

There is simply no discussion whatsoever in any modern journal of history or biblical scholarship about whether Jesus existed--any more than there is a discussion in modern geology journals about whether there was a worldwide flood.

You claim they're biased--BZZZ, logical fallacy of poisoning the well. We hear the same thing from young-earth creationists, claiming that "all those atheist scientists are biased".

Boro Nut

That's impressive. If only he'd recognised his latent genius for marketting sooner he might have sold a lot more tables and stools.

Boro Nut

lenrek

Buckle your seat belt, as this thread making an FTL jump to another forum...

Thread move from EoG to AC:C&H

spamandham

If no-one had written anything about me while I was alive, and decades later they started to write things about me that sound like I'm a fictional character, then I would find it odd if people came to believe I had actually existed based on writings such as that.

The problem with the idea that "the existence of Christianity proves there was a Jesus", is that it completely ignores the fact that the very earliest writings sound like the spiritual savior-Son from the books of Enoch mixed together with other concepts popular at the time.

Sure, there could have been a historical figure somehow intertwined in all this, but if there was, I don't think we know anything about him. In another thread I've been pressing for an answer to why it is that there is a concensus that Jesus existed, and that he was a first century itinerate preacher (which is the historical concensus). No-one has been able to provide any answer other than "parsimony", which is hardly compelling. I think the historians have simply assumed to be likely those parts of the story that don't sound unreasonable.

If you took the same approach with Santa, you would end up concluding he was a man who lived in the far northern hemisphere who rode around in a sleigh (an ordinary sleigh on the ground) drawn by reindeer distributing toys to needy children on Christmas. He wore a red suit, had a penchant for milk and cookies, and his own toy factory where he employed people suffering from dwarfism to make the toys.

But we actually know a bit about the history of St. Nick independent of the Santa myth, and none of what we concluded from the myth is valid.

Jesus is another character so tightly coupled to myth that I doubt we can reasonably glean anything about him from those myths. But in the case of Jesus, we don't have an independent history of him decoupled from the myths. As we can't glean anything at all about him from the myths, I don't think it's reasonable to even conclude he existed. All we can say is there might be a historical figure intertwined in parts of the story, but what don't know which parts. I can see no reason that King Tut is not that historical figure, or possibly the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, or possibly John the Baptist is the historical Jesus.

Malachi151

No, there is nothing that can be called evidence for the existence of "Jesus".

If you have 3 hours, you can view my presentation on the subject. I'll do a written writeup of it eventually

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ristianity.htm

My view:

"Jesus Christ" was a completely mythical construct with no historical basis at all, not any person that was a model for this figure or anything.

The most likely scenario I think is that John the Baptist was a real person and was preaching about the coming of the Messiah shortly after the end of the Hasmonean kingdom.

After he died this teaching about the coming Messiah continued on and became the root of the "Jesus Christ" mystery religion that Paul was preaching about.

This "Jesus Christ" sect of Judaism was a minor and ill-defined sect that was primarily embraced among the diaspora Jews in Greece, Rome, and Alexandria.

Shortly after the destruction of Judea around 70 CE the author of Mark, living in Rome, wrote an allegorical story, which is now called the Gospel of Mark.

The real point of the story of "Mark" is that the Jews brought their destruction upon themselves with their own foolishness and desire to remain separate from everyone else. The author of Mark, himself a Jew, believed that the future of Judaism was with the Roman Empire and that Jews should integrate with the "Gentiles", hence the reason that the Roman Officer is the one who recognizes that Jesus was "the Son of God".

All of the other story book gospels are based directly or indirectly on the story of Mark. "Matthew" may or may not have been treating Mark as real history, he may also have seen it as allegory, but Luke definitely thought he was writing history. John was probably written in two phases, an early allegorical gnostic version, and a revised Catholic historicized version.

At no time was there ever a human basis for the Jesus Christ character.

Every event in the so-called life of Jesus as described in the gospels comes from "Old Testament" stories and Psalms.

Gooch's dad

Sorry, Malachi, I consider such "presentations" to be about as valid as Kent Hovind's presentations on how evolution is false.

As I said earlier in the thread, the consensus among historians is that Jesus existed. The question of whether he existed was brought up in the field of historical inquiry 100 years or so ago, dealt with, and dismissed.

As for evidence--Jesus had a brother named James, according to two separate and independent sources (Paul and Josephus). That's sound evidence, like it or not.

Malachi151

Well, seeing as you know nothing about the facts and arguments that I use to support my case, I don't see where you have a leg to stand on. I know that my presentation takes a long time to view, but I'll do a textual writeup pretty soon.

The Josephus reference is surely an interpolation, not a reference to "Jesus Christ" at all. First of all, Josephus clarifies who the Jesus is elsewhere in the paragraph and its not Jesus "Christ". Second of all, if Josephus was aware of any "Jesus Christ" he would have written more about him. Josephus provides no commentary on any of the gospels, on Christians, or on Jesus Christ. The paragraph in Antiquities about Jesus is universally recognized as a later forgery, which means that the only reference to "Jesus" in the works of Josephus would be the one indirect reference as the "brother of James".

Does this make any sense? If he knew of this person and this person was recognizable by the title "Christ", he would have written something more about him.

Also, the paragraph about James really makes no sense if the "Jesus" mentioned is "Christ". Josephus is saying that the Jews blamed the destruction of Judea on their execution of James. If there was a "Jesus Christ" wouldn't they blame the destruction of Judea on their execution of him instead? Jame was just a "Just Man", whereas "Jesus" would have been the proclaimed "Messiah". Who is it worse to kill, a just man, or the Messiah?

It makes no sense to say that the Jews blamed the destruction of Judea on the killing of the brother of the Messiah.

Gooch's dad

Just as I predicted earlier in the thread, someone can't distinguish between the Testimonium Flavianum, and Antiquities 20.9.1. The latter is generally accepted to *not* be an interpolation.

Color me unimpressed.

Doug Shaver

Paul does not say that Jesus had a brother named James.