AtheistVirus

Why does Dawkins always say that Jesus probably existed, he always uses that wording instead simply saying, "let's pretend he existed, than..." or "Jesus probably didn't exist"

Has he read this-
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

Am I missing something here, it's hard to believe Dawkins would be so uninformed..

Why go positive on probability of his existence instead of negative which is more concordant with available evidence??
I thought he would be more scientific than that...

J.F. Gaul

Most scholars accept that Jesus existed. Much of Jesus' life was simply mythologized. Granted, all of the events of Jesus' life that we have in the Gospels are copied/borrowed from earlier sources, including the Old Testament, but on the whole most evidence points to an existing Jesus as a teacher who was executed.

I'm afraid Dawkins isn't the one who is misinformed in this case...

Toto

The idea that some person existed behind the Jesus legend is standard conventional wisdom in most of academia. The idea that Jesus never existed and Christianity started as the worship of a spiritual savior is too new and too complicated to explain for most non-specialists. Dawkins is not a specialist in this very narrow field, and he is just going by what most people tell him on an issue that doesn't actually make much difference for most people.

But even a purely human Jesus is enough to say that Christianity is not the truth.

For most purposes, the human Jesus theory is enough to defeat the idea that Jesus was the fleshy part of the trinity who got himself born of a virgin and crucified under Pilate, then rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God.

Vampyroteuthis

I think I missed the announcement proclaiming jebus was a real person. Can you send me a pic or something?

J.F. Gaul

As a side note, I always get a chuckle out of the Christians that say the Gospels must have been right about Jesus because the early Christians were willing to die for their beliefs. Apparently, they have never heard of the Jonestown Massacre or other such incidents.

J.F. Gaul

It's Jesus. Yay!

Lord_Terrible

I think it goes a little too far when dispelling the myth of Christianity to deny Jesus even existed. Saying he existed and was only human is the most logical route as it agrees with the evidence (Tacitus, Roman execution records etc) and doesn't make it seem like he is the SoG.

Merely 'Jesus was a human man who lied a lot' should suffice.

AtheistVirus

I'm not interested in biases and pandering, if there is already enough direct and circumstantial evidence of Jesus's nonexistence why not say "probably didn't exist" instead of "probably did exist", negative probability is more solid than positive, isn't it?

J.F. Gaul

Perhaps because there isn't enough direct and circumstantial evidence of his nonexistence?

Clivedurdle

Not sure it is a complicated idea.

Does it not just require a change of mindset, for example by reading the New Testament as you would read Norse or Greek Myths, realising that the difference of having one god and one son and it being about saving the universe does not actually differentiate the story from those of Hercules for example.


And when was the historical core hypothesis first promulgated and by whom? Was it not a reaction to something?


Reading the Bible is very different to most other books. When do you get elsewhere people telling you what it says and having huge institutions telling you what the party line is?

This amount of dis and mis information will cause problems, but maybe like the Gordian knot it is easy to cut!